I took some pics last night and posted them here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=37038221
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=37038221
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
E5 and 150/2 + 14-35/2 concert pics
- Thread starter nugat
- Start date
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
That's an interesting comparison, actually. The D700 with a Nikkor 300mm f/4 would give the same reach as the E-5 with the Zuiko 150mm f/2.0 and similar DOF wide open. Since the Nikkor is two stops slower, ISO 6400 is actually needed to achieve the same shutter speed as with the E-3 at ISO 1600. The two combos are even relatively similarly priced. But, the Olympus has IS while the Nikkor doesn't, and when the Nikkor becomes available with VR, prices of recently launched Nikkor primes suggest that the price will be much higher as well.
The Nikon would probably be the quality winner with the 300mm f/2.8, but then we are talking much bigger, much heavier and much, much more expensive.
A more relevant comparison would be with the D7000 or K5. The Oly would struggle against those, but not enough to make the E-5 an unatractive alternative. The fact is that Olympus is at last offering a camera that can compete against anything except the real heavyweights.
The Nikon would probably be the quality winner with the 300mm f/2.8, but then we are talking much bigger, much heavier and much, much more expensive.
A more relevant comparison would be with the D7000 or K5. The Oly would struggle against those, but not enough to make the E-5 an unatractive alternative. The fact is that Olympus is at last offering a camera that can compete against anything except the real heavyweights.
Last edited:
seakayaker
Active member
Thanks for sharing the pictures taken with the E-5.
Enjoyed them and the demonstration of the versatility of the E-5 camera and olympus lens.
Life is Grand!
Dan
~
Pics here too...
I placed the pics here too for easy viewing (only 100kB each, that 20MB total file limit!). All are OOC Jpegs, no post, uncropped (except one-girl between hosts).
Having both D700 and E5 I believe the two systems are fairly close. Oly makes up with glass the Nikkor noise advantage*. Edges out with resolution and OOC picture, especially color. Nikon jpegs are hopeless, and NEFs must be worked on to get close to Oly jpegs. So nice to have fully usable pictures out of camera!And play with them in iPhoto for easy management ("events"), web, mail and print use. Photography as I like it, all picture-taking fun, no computer hassle.
*D700+24/1.4 is still unbeatable for wide shots in the dark.
Copyright FremantleMedia 2010.
I placed the pics here too for easy viewing (only 100kB each, that 20MB total file limit!). All are OOC Jpegs, no post, uncropped (except one-girl between hosts).
Having both D700 and E5 I believe the two systems are fairly close. Oly makes up with glass the Nikkor noise advantage*. Edges out with resolution and OOC picture, especially color. Nikon jpegs are hopeless, and NEFs must be worked on to get close to Oly jpegs. So nice to have fully usable pictures out of camera!And play with them in iPhoto for easy management ("events"), web, mail and print use. Photography as I like it, all picture-taking fun, no computer hassle.
*D700+24/1.4 is still unbeatable for wide shots in the dark.
Copyright FremantleMedia 2010.
Last edited:
ptomsu
Workshop Member
Re: Pics here too...
I never use JPEG in any of these systems and using only RAW I do not see a big difference in the final results between E5 and D700 except that the D700 has still better high ISO performance, while with the E5 you need faster glass to compensate for that. The samples I uploaded are processed in LR3.3 but no adjustments what so ever, as what I tried made the results worse than better. Same happens in C1 Pro, which is the second preferred RAW developer I am using.
What is more remarkable though is that the D700 is a 3 year old design, whereas the E5 is the top state of the art DSLR form Olympus. This was why I put the comparison shots in, as you can see that the E5 only now gets on par with the 3 year old D700. What does this tell us? Well the D700 will be replaced soon with some kind of new sensor based on what we find today in A55, K5 or D7000, but FF. What that means? These sensors easily get up to 12800 and higher and have reportedly much better colors. So think about a FF sensor like that in the D800 (or whatever name it will carry) - maybe offering 24MP or even higher. This is an area where unfortunately 43 (and M43) will never be able to play.
COming back to one of the most important facts why all these discussions started - weight: It is obvious that with top Zuiko glass on an E5 you get similar IQ as with a D700 with top level glass. But the weight and size will then be not really different. At least not so different that it is worth to discuss in the one or the other way.
If you really want lower weight but have highest performance today, then you would have to go for Pentax K5 with some of their top lenses like 2.8/16-50 or 2.8/50-135 etc. - check it out, this is a really interesting new camera (system).
I would agree that both systems are pretty close. What you gain in better higher ISO performance with D700 you make up with faster lenses from Oly, which you also need if you want to make up for loss in DOV. Issue is that with the faster Zuiko glass you make also up any weight advantage compared to D700, especially if you compare with E5.
I never use JPEG in any of these systems and using only RAW I do not see a big difference in the final results between E5 and D700 except that the D700 has still better high ISO performance, while with the E5 you need faster glass to compensate for that. The samples I uploaded are processed in LR3.3 but no adjustments what so ever, as what I tried made the results worse than better. Same happens in C1 Pro, which is the second preferred RAW developer I am using.
What is more remarkable though is that the D700 is a 3 year old design, whereas the E5 is the top state of the art DSLR form Olympus. This was why I put the comparison shots in, as you can see that the E5 only now gets on par with the 3 year old D700. What does this tell us? Well the D700 will be replaced soon with some kind of new sensor based on what we find today in A55, K5 or D7000, but FF. What that means? These sensors easily get up to 12800 and higher and have reportedly much better colors. So think about a FF sensor like that in the D800 (or whatever name it will carry) - maybe offering 24MP or even higher. This is an area where unfortunately 43 (and M43) will never be able to play.
COming back to one of the most important facts why all these discussions started - weight: It is obvious that with top Zuiko glass on an E5 you get similar IQ as with a D700 with top level glass. But the weight and size will then be not really different. At least not so different that it is worth to discuss in the one or the other way.
If you really want lower weight but have highest performance today, then you would have to go for Pentax K5 with some of their top lenses like 2.8/16-50 or 2.8/50-135 etc. - check it out, this is a really interesting new camera (system).
I am very happy to have both and use both. D700 with the exceptional 24mm/f1.4 and E5 with the longer uncomparable glass. When I have to choose now for one walkabout, I decide for the zuiko 12-60. For me it's always more about the lenses than the electronic body. In the end I still have my Leica collection waiting for M10.
ptomsu
Workshop Member
So you give the answer yourself - you decide for the lighter and also more versatile lens.
This is what I mean with weight and size: while I really liked shooting my 24-70 and 70-200 both 2.8 lenses on the D700 and BTW also liked the smooth and fast AF, I hated to carry and handle the weight and size. Could I have had instead a K5 with 16-50 and 50-135 I would have had the same (or even a better telephoto) range, plus more MP, plus colors you all tell me one needs to have, plus DNG if I wanted it, plus the whole combo would have been much easier to carry and hence to handle.
I said that weight is an advantage in these type of shoots, right, but this was for 2 hours performance and then I really got tired. With a lighter system the whole would become much more maneuverable
Think the K5 with the Pentax glass is currently really the sweetspot in this regard.
Godfrey
Well-known member
The D700 will most likely be upgraded to the D3s sensor on the next rev, which is a nice small-increment improvement, unless they fit it with a new sensor enabling video capture. Even there, I don't expect it to be earth-shatteringly different in sensitivity and noise control.
Between the first and second posts image content, it's a toss up to me. Neither stand out to my eye as technically or aesthetically superior. With cameras and lenses of this calibre, how a photographer uses them is more important than the miniscule differences in capabilities.
Every system has strengths and weaknesses ... Olympus, Nikon, Pentax, Canon, Sony ... so if you like one of them and its strengths align with the work you do, life is good. None are "best".
For me, the Olympus E-5 with the lenses in my kit is the sweet spot. Having worked with Pentax for several years, I'm very familiar with the lenses they offer ... and I prefer what I have now, overall.
Between the first and second posts image content, it's a toss up to me. Neither stand out to my eye as technically or aesthetically superior. With cameras and lenses of this calibre, how a photographer uses them is more important than the miniscule differences in capabilities.
Every system has strengths and weaknesses ... Olympus, Nikon, Pentax, Canon, Sony ... so if you like one of them and its strengths align with the work you do, life is good. None are "best".
For me, the Olympus E-5 with the lenses in my kit is the sweet spot. Having worked with Pentax for several years, I'm very familiar with the lenses they offer ... and I prefer what I have now, overall.
I think the images show that both systems are capable to deliever great iQ even in low light.
Comparing the systems should include DOF which means size advantage of 4/3 is losr because you need faster lens to get same thin DOF. Also ISO advantage of FF is lost becauseyou need to stop down and increase ISO to get same DOF.
Colors are personal taste and Nikon works fine but not perfect for me. For my taste I prefer Pentax color slightly over Oly and that over Nikon.
I agree that I am impressed again and again how good the 3 year old D700 stad up to new cameras. Impressing.
I havent experienced the E5 but the k5 and have to say I really like it but the Nikon AF is in a different level ( I mean contionous AF).
Also the lens offerings from Nikon and Canon offer much more options than Oly or Pentax.
So for me it comes down to find out what lenses does one want/need and which user interface does one prefer/like and same regarding taste for colors.
The good thing is that today all those brands offer very capable cameras and lenses.
Comparing the systems should include DOF which means size advantage of 4/3 is losr because you need faster lens to get same thin DOF. Also ISO advantage of FF is lost becauseyou need to stop down and increase ISO to get same DOF.
Colors are personal taste and Nikon works fine but not perfect for me. For my taste I prefer Pentax color slightly over Oly and that over Nikon.
I agree that I am impressed again and again how good the 3 year old D700 stad up to new cameras. Impressing.
I havent experienced the E5 but the k5 and have to say I really like it but the Nikon AF is in a different level ( I mean contionous AF).
Also the lens offerings from Nikon and Canon offer much more options than Oly or Pentax.
So for me it comes down to find out what lenses does one want/need and which user interface does one prefer/like and same regarding taste for colors.
The good thing is that today all those brands offer very capable cameras and lenses.
ptomsu
Workshop Member
The comparison did not mean any aesthetically superior shots - it was from my side a reportage and everyone having taken images at such a life event knows how that works. Aesthetics is somehow not what you will get in most cases
Anyway I wanted to show that already 3 year old technology is performing well on par (if not better - and colors are subjective !!!!) with today's state of the art.
But I can tell you one thing - just hold your breath for what will be the next D700 and the next D3X - this will be the real game changers. And they are maybe out some 6 - 12 months.
Enjoy your E5 meanwhile
Godfrey
Well-known member
"3 years older" sensors with 4x the photosite area are not comparable "on par". The E-5 is by this measure actually outperforming the D700 by a factor of 2-4x on noise control.
Nikon will produce new, better equipment. So will Olympus. So will everyone else. When is it good enough? When do you get off the "gotta buy new equipment" bandwagon because you're after some infinitely elusive micro-advantage?
My E-1 is my oldest digital camera, dating from 2003. It still produces superb results and photos made with it continue to win recognition and satisfy clients. I like it, it is a wonderful camera to shoot with even though lethargic at writing files by today's standards. Who the heck cares if it makes great photographs?
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
Re: Pics here too...
Somewhat unrelated, but just to show how fast and how much things change: In 1987, an IBM 3380, 2 meters tall and a couple of hundred kilograms, the first commercially available 1GB HDD (1.26GB to be exact), was priced at $70,000 (it was actually launched a few years earlier, in 1981, for a higher price). Today, 23 short years later, the price of a 2TB HDD is around $100. That's 1,600x the capacity for 1/700 of the price and at around 1/500 of the weight and size. Although optics complicates things, I don't doubt for a second that 10-15 years from now, we'll see sensors much smaller than those in 4/3 cameras that can shoot clean enough photos at ISOs that are high enough only to have theoretical interest. The challenge will be the lenses, but seeing what they are doing with optical corrections in in software nowadays, I don't doubt for a second that those challenges will be resolved as well. Just look at the tiny, and very good, lenses made for m43.
Never? I would be careful using that word about electronics. Although larger sensors will always have an advantage, it's a question how much is useful for most photographers.
Somewhat unrelated, but just to show how fast and how much things change: In 1987, an IBM 3380, 2 meters tall and a couple of hundred kilograms, the first commercially available 1GB HDD (1.26GB to be exact), was priced at $70,000 (it was actually launched a few years earlier, in 1981, for a higher price). Today, 23 short years later, the price of a 2TB HDD is around $100. That's 1,600x the capacity for 1/700 of the price and at around 1/500 of the weight and size. Although optics complicates things, I don't doubt for a second that 10-15 years from now, we'll see sensors much smaller than those in 4/3 cameras that can shoot clean enough photos at ISOs that are high enough only to have theoretical interest. The challenge will be the lenses, but seeing what they are doing with optical corrections in in software nowadays, I don't doubt for a second that those challenges will be resolved as well. Just look at the tiny, and very good, lenses made for m43.
This is a valid argument as long as DOF or lack of light are important factors, but given a situation where you have enough light and don't need hair thin DOF, a 70-300 on a 43/m43 camera will be very much lighter than anything that spells sixhundredmillimeters on a full frame camera. For somebody who runs around tropical golf courses with two camera bodies and long lenses on a regular basis, that means a lot.
Last edited:
ptomsu
Workshop Member
For me the quality is already good enough -both D700 and E5. What comes now - at least for me - are improvements which I will take but would not really need.
ptomsu
Workshop Member
Re: Pics here too...
Well, m43 is a totally different area than 43. And I fully agree with what you say about m43. This is the reason why I am still in m43 but went out of 43 some years ago.
Hmmm, I don't know, I too have D700 with 70-200 VRII and it is my impression results from it can be much better than that.
K
kaptnk
Guest
Thanks nugat for the comparison. Your D700 FF $2700 list verse Olympus E-5 $1700 list.
Olympus wins up to 1600 ISO is amazing.
If IQ is what we all strive for then low ISO is out of the question. We all know that as we drop ISO, DR, IQ, Color, noise, etc all drop very significantly. It should only be used when we must take a shot when flash or other types of added light is not possible. The other advantage is low ISO like 400 or 800 ISO greatly reduces the battery drain on our flash units. (3 full stops from 100 ISO). Normally, IQ is still very good at 800 ISO but 400 ISO should even be better. Marketing departments try to get us all hyped up to buy their product. And to keep buying their products.
You wish to compare a FF sensor to a 4/3rds sensor and not the best 4/3rds sensor to boot. The best 4/3rds that I know of is the GH1 or possibly GH2 as per DXO. The GH1 gives about equal performance to the Canon 7D. Why Olympus was not using the better sensor is a mystery? (cost, availability, maybe Panasonic would not sell it yet or it simply doesn't matter with fine detail pixel by pixel processing).
One wise person pointed out that we rarely need anything higher than ISO 1600 with a F2.8 lens. Add IS and you can normally add 1-2 stops by lowering the SS. 12 MP is all we need to shoot 30x40 in prints and even 3 MP images can be amazing. For example: I took a 1600 ISO image from an Olympus E-510 (10 MP) and processed it with DXO noise reduction and lens blur removal. When I opened it in PS CS 5 camera RAW to polish off the noise removal I found that DXO had removed all of the noise that I could detect in the low light, dark wall areas and the black area of the groom's jacket. I believe that it is fair to say that DXO will be able to clean up 3200 ISO E-5 and most likely 6400 ISO with only a some loss of detail. If you must have really low light shots then the Nikon D3S at $5,000 is what you should look at. Interesting that a German mag put the E-5 at number 3 behind the Canon Mark IV and the Nikon D3S, both costing 3x the price of the E-5.
Why Olympus E-5?
1. Excellent IQ at 200-800 ISO -DR, Color, Sharpness, details
2. In camera IS and dust control
3. Micro adjustment
4. Remote flash control
5. Excellent glass at lower prices because IS is in the camera (save at least $400 per lens).
6. IS for all of your glass unlike Canon and Nikon whose primes do not have IS.
7. Reasonable burst rate.
8. Water Proof for the out of doors or a wedding on a rainy day.
9. Professional build quality.
From your resolution chart I believe that I see 2500-2600 and extinction at 2700 lph. My Canon 5 D Mk II is 2600 to 3300 with twice the MP. Not bad for 12 MP! The pen sensor was tested at 2300 to 2700 lph. So what resolution do we really need? The original 5 MP E-1 printed excellent 20x30 in shots. If removing the AA and using fine detail processing can give us a 10% improvement in resolution and no moire then that is excellent and all that I need. Now add DXO to really polish off the resolution to the max.
I do not need anything more!
See if you can tell me which photos were taken with the Olympus E-510 or Canon 5D Mk II at www.kwmastersphoto.com You can't. Why? Most cameras in the past 5 years produce excellent results under 400 ISO if you use good glass. The Olympus E-5 is the next logical choice for us as we have the standard 2.8 lenses and 8mm fisheye to boot.
Thanks for the comparison. The 30x40in images from the E-5 look amazing. The macro images and dragon fly eyes and details look amazing that I have seen.
The biggest problem might be the old FL50R flash. If so look at the Metz 58 as an excellent upgrade/replacement.
Nikon and Canon all make good equipment at their professional camera level. My customers don't care which camera I use. They only look at the results. If I pay $10,000 more for equipment, then I lose $10,000 if the results that I can get with Olympus are equal or better.
Olympus wins up to 1600 ISO is amazing.
If IQ is what we all strive for then low ISO is out of the question. We all know that as we drop ISO, DR, IQ, Color, noise, etc all drop very significantly. It should only be used when we must take a shot when flash or other types of added light is not possible. The other advantage is low ISO like 400 or 800 ISO greatly reduces the battery drain on our flash units. (3 full stops from 100 ISO). Normally, IQ is still very good at 800 ISO but 400 ISO should even be better. Marketing departments try to get us all hyped up to buy their product. And to keep buying their products.
You wish to compare a FF sensor to a 4/3rds sensor and not the best 4/3rds sensor to boot. The best 4/3rds that I know of is the GH1 or possibly GH2 as per DXO. The GH1 gives about equal performance to the Canon 7D. Why Olympus was not using the better sensor is a mystery? (cost, availability, maybe Panasonic would not sell it yet or it simply doesn't matter with fine detail pixel by pixel processing).
One wise person pointed out that we rarely need anything higher than ISO 1600 with a F2.8 lens. Add IS and you can normally add 1-2 stops by lowering the SS. 12 MP is all we need to shoot 30x40 in prints and even 3 MP images can be amazing. For example: I took a 1600 ISO image from an Olympus E-510 (10 MP) and processed it with DXO noise reduction and lens blur removal. When I opened it in PS CS 5 camera RAW to polish off the noise removal I found that DXO had removed all of the noise that I could detect in the low light, dark wall areas and the black area of the groom's jacket. I believe that it is fair to say that DXO will be able to clean up 3200 ISO E-5 and most likely 6400 ISO with only a some loss of detail. If you must have really low light shots then the Nikon D3S at $5,000 is what you should look at. Interesting that a German mag put the E-5 at number 3 behind the Canon Mark IV and the Nikon D3S, both costing 3x the price of the E-5.
Why Olympus E-5?
1. Excellent IQ at 200-800 ISO -DR, Color, Sharpness, details
2. In camera IS and dust control
3. Micro adjustment
4. Remote flash control
5. Excellent glass at lower prices because IS is in the camera (save at least $400 per lens).
6. IS for all of your glass unlike Canon and Nikon whose primes do not have IS.
7. Reasonable burst rate.
8. Water Proof for the out of doors or a wedding on a rainy day.
9. Professional build quality.
From your resolution chart I believe that I see 2500-2600 and extinction at 2700 lph. My Canon 5 D Mk II is 2600 to 3300 with twice the MP. Not bad for 12 MP! The pen sensor was tested at 2300 to 2700 lph. So what resolution do we really need? The original 5 MP E-1 printed excellent 20x30 in shots. If removing the AA and using fine detail processing can give us a 10% improvement in resolution and no moire then that is excellent and all that I need. Now add DXO to really polish off the resolution to the max.
I do not need anything more!
See if you can tell me which photos were taken with the Olympus E-510 or Canon 5D Mk II at www.kwmastersphoto.com You can't. Why? Most cameras in the past 5 years produce excellent results under 400 ISO if you use good glass. The Olympus E-5 is the next logical choice for us as we have the standard 2.8 lenses and 8mm fisheye to boot.
Thanks for the comparison. The 30x40in images from the E-5 look amazing. The macro images and dragon fly eyes and details look amazing that I have seen.
The biggest problem might be the old FL50R flash. If so look at the Metz 58 as an excellent upgrade/replacement.
Nikon and Canon all make good equipment at their professional camera level. My customers don't care which camera I use. They only look at the results. If I pay $10,000 more for equipment, then I lose $10,000 if the results that I can get with Olympus are equal or better.
Last edited: