E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

[deckitout]

It's funny how Oly grabs you. I have been to Oly and back twice, I now have full frame D700, APS D90 M 4/3 G1 and EPL1.

But it's Olympus I have a real passion for, if I were convinced about there support for the system in the future I would certainly consider again, but I am just a little nervous at present

If I can share my personal experience I have both Nikon (D 700) and Oly (E5 now as a replacement of E3). I use both systems for their respective merits but if I have to choose only one between the two, my preference is for Oly.
Cheers,
Ario

 

[cjlacz]

It's been a pleasure to read this thread. Everyone here is so much more grounded then other photography forums. I've been very intrigued with the E5 and I'm glad many posters here feel the same. Since I have some investment in 4/3s lenses I really don't want to switch. The D700 is just larger and heavier than I'd like with Nikon's high end lenses. Not to mention the prices of their new primes.

Still, I'm thinking of selling my E-30 to a friend and sticking to my OM4Ti and film this year and look at a E-5 when the prices come down a bit. For those that do pick up an E-5 I'm looking forward to reading your thoughts.

 

[ptomsu]

It's funny how Oly grabs you. I have been to Oly and back twice, I now have full frame D700, APS D90 M 4/3 G1 and EPL1.

But it's Olympus I have a real passion for, if I were convinced about there support for the system in the future I would certainly consider again, but I am just a little nervous at present

You know, I am in the same situation. I used to trust Oly several times, starting back in the film days with an OM2, later OM4 and then saw the complete system disappear because of no longer support from Oly. I bought the E1 and some glass, was very happy, but just needed some more MP. I bought the E3 trusting them blindly and was just disappointed because my AF did not work as well as overall support was just bad. Sold the complete system and went back into Nikon.

Was not happy with Nikon either but at least the camera worked as specified. Tried Sony, not really what I wanted, although many here are happy with Alpha. Went back to a D700 again, good camera, good lenses, but .... what really rocks me is the E5 and the 2.0 zooms. This is just a different way to photograph for me. The longer I think about it the more I come to the conclusion I should try Oly again. And hopefully stay

 

[ptomsu]

It's been a pleasure to read this thread. Everyone here is so much more grounded then other photography forums. I've been very intrigued with the E5 and I'm glad many posters here feel the same. Since I have some investment in 4/3s lenses I really don't want to switch. The D700 is just larger and heavier than I'd like with Nikon's high end lenses. Not to mention the prices of their new primes.

Still, I'm thinking of selling my E-30 to a friend and sticking to my OM4Ti and film this year and look at a E-5 when the prices come down a bit. For those that do pick up an E-5 I'm looking forward to reading your thoughts.

I had the D700 and the E5 side by side last weekend and they are pretty much same size and weight. So there are not much differences.

But today I tried looking at the results from last weekend in C1Pro - all E5 shot in RAW. The results are just stunning, especially with that processing SW. Absolutely stunning! Cannot say more!

 

[cjlacz]

I had the D700 and the E5 side by side last weekend and they are pretty much same size and weight. So there are not much differences.

But today I tried looking at the results from last weekend in C1Pro - all E5 shot in RAW. The results are just stunning, especially with that processing SW. Absolutely stunning! Cannot say more!

Agreed, the E5 is larger than I want, but looking at the system as a whole they have options to keeping the weight/bulk down than Nikon. Oly has the very nice HG lenses that Nikon doesn't seem to make. The other nice thing about Oly is I can use the lenses on a E-620 or m4/3s camera and still get the same angle of view. Not sure I'd want to after trying the E-5, but the option is there. That's not really possible with the D700.

 

[Pat Donnelly]

As sensors improve, roughly twice as good every three years say, given the lesser amount invested than in the cpu business, the arguments will become clearer: m4/3 is adequate and will be cheaper than the FF and APS-c options.

Higher quality will always be available with Med Format digital backs. Their price will fall, of course. Investing therefore, suggests that FF lenses are likely to be less attractive than the 4/3 and m4/3 equivalent. The smaller format offers size and cost advantages. The quality issue will be irrelevant. Usability will converge also.

In the meantime, users have their current investments made and are used to certain systems. Hence the closely and cogently argued positions on this thread, reflecting a very seasoned and balanced range of views.

The great winner is the new user who can adopt the system with the most potential: m4/3. The old 6x6cm debates are being rehearsed and for mobile photography, it seems history is again rhyming: the smaller 110 format, has finally come of age!

For those who disagree, I wish you great photography, but as you get older and as tremors increase, you too will come to appreciate the smaller format! Technology is making the proper outcome of these debates increasingly clear!

 

[raist3d]

In this recent (today) press release announcing Zeiss co-operation with the m4/3, Olympus seems to declare also the intention to continue to develop both standards:

"As the originator of the Four Thirds System and Micro Four Thirds System standards, Olympus Imaging Corp. will continue to develop and enhance the product lineup for both standards to meet the diverse needs of our customers."

Olympus has said this before with joint press releases with Panasonic. Yet in direct interviews with Olympus officials like Terada and the Europe Manager they have mentioned the future is Pen.

The main thing is they support 4/3rd lenses in a Pen world, which they have also mentioned. With that, a good pro spec pen handling 4/3rd lenses well is all that is required to carry the torch while no more 4/3rd systems come out.

- Raist

 

[raist3d]

As sensors improve, roughly twice as good every three years say, given the lesser amount invested than in the cpu business, the arguments will become clearer: m4/3 is adequate and will be cheaper than the FF and APS-c options.

That was one of the arguments with 4/3rds. Was.

- Raist

 

[raist3d]

@Jorgen Udvang

A few things to keep in mind in your comparisons with the E-5-

If you want nice detail, lower megabyte files and you are a low iso shooter the E-5 is definitively a compelling alternative for your needs. I am not sure if this is all I need but from the way you talk, I humbly suggest you consider in your D7000/K-5 comparisons-

- the dynamic range- is this important to you? The sony sensored cameras do much better here
- high iso performance - I don't know if you used something like LightRoom to convert the D7000 files but I have the suspicion using a good raw converter would get rid of most color issues. I really think there's more than just a mere stop different in ISO. As for the in-body IS, remember that won't stop moving subjects.
- shadows and banding- do you often post process recovering from shadows in a high contrast scene? Where you exposed for highlights? The E-5 runs out of shadow DR rather fast and does show some banding if you bring some of those shadows up/shoot at high ISO's.

Now, what I just mentioned may be completely irrelevant to your photography, in which case, skip n' ignore. It won't matter to you. If some of that matters to you, put some weight to the things you care about (suggestion) and compare keeping that in mind.

Doesn't hurt to try and check the E-5 along with the D7000 in the same photographic situation. Also as far as fast lenses go, the E-5 has only two F1.4 choices (one Panasonic- no longer made, and another Sigma- probably no longer made either).

- Raist

 

[cjlacz]

That was one of the arguments with 4/3rds. Was.

- Raist

It still is an argument for 4/3s. Just because they came out with m4/3s doesn't mean 4/3s won't see the same improvements from the save investment.

Olympus may see the future as the Pen, and I think they are right. It's a more modern system than just putting a digital sensor in a SLR body. I'm not expecting that 4/3s disappears that quickly though. There are probably technical issues that will prevent 4/3s lenses from performing as quickly with CDAF as PDAF. It's going to take a while to convert people from OVFs to EVFs. I think we'll see the system live on for a while.

One of the biggests costs of bringing new products to market is all the time spent polishing it to get it ready for release. If you consider one pro level camera every 3 years or so with a lot of the R&D being shared with m4/3s I imagine they can do a good job recouping their costs. I don't have any special knowledge of Olympus, just some time spent working in technology companies. Apple is a good example of how a minimal product line and parts reuse can reduce costs.

 

[Paratom]

I find it troubling that for the Martini logo, the E-5 seems to be sharper, but is not in the rest of the photo (I think). The difference is particularly striking for the paper clips - is the plane of focus different?

this is a different discussion but I have to say that I find the dpreview image quality comparisons to be read very carefull.
The very slightest focus difference will give a wrong interpretation. Then there are many lenses with many f-stops with many distances in many different light.
Here we see one lens one fstop one distance with limited contrast and mostly artificial subjects.
And then there are different raw converters which might work different for different sensors.
I look at the dpreviews but frankly the image comparisons I dont take really serious as an indicator for real life photography.

 

[ptomsu]

It still is an argument for 4/3s. Just because they came out with m4/3s doesn't mean 4/3s won't see the same improvements from the save investment.

Olympus may see the future as the Pen, and I think they are right. It's a more modern system than just putting a digital sensor in a SLR body. I'm not expecting that 4/3s disappears that quickly though. There are probably technical issues that will prevent 4/3s lenses from performing as quickly with CDAF as PDAF. It's going to take a while to convert people from OVFs to EVFs. I think we'll see the system live on for a while.

One of the biggests costs of bringing new products to market is all the time spent polishing it to get it ready for release. If you consider one pro level camera every 3 years or so with a lot of the R&D being shared with m4/3s I imagine they can do a good job recouping their costs. I don't have any special knowledge of Olympus, just some time spent working in technology companies. Apple is a good example of how a minimal product line and parts reuse can reduce costs.

Talked to an Olympus representative lately and he told me that the Pro level 43 camera (E5 and future models) will be continued. So there should be a E7 (or however this one will be called, most likely with OVF. I understood that the rest of the 43 cameras would go away and instead as a consumer line M43 will be the future.

Which makes perfect sense to me, as they will need a Pro level top DSLR for the Pro grade 43 lenses! It makes not much sense IMHO to mount a big and heavy 35-100 or 2/150 or 2.8/300 on a M43 body, even a Pro one, as simply the handling of the complete unit would then be sub optimal.

So my expectations are highly towards a E5 successor in the same size as the E5. But please with at least a sensor as we have it today in the GH2. There are also rumors that Olympus is now allowed again to use other vendor's sensors for future products than just Panasonic. So maybe we will see one of the latest Kodak sensors in a future 43 or M43 Pro body. Which should not only bring significant resolution increase, but also better DR and higher ISO support because of the new technology.

 

[douglasf13]

According to those more knowledgable than myself, the problem with m4/3 and 4/3 sensors right now isn't tied to size as much as most believe. The IQ advantage that Sony APS-C sensors have right now over m4/3 is based on the sensor tech itself, where Panasonic (similar to Samsung APS-C) just isn't building a sensor that competes with Sony on the pixel level. If Panasonic built an APS-C sensor, or Sony built a m4/3 sensor, the gap would still be there, albeit a bit less.

Sensor size is important, but there are a lot of pieces to the puzzle.

 

[Godfrey]

Far as I'm concerned, there isn't any "problem" with FourThirds sensors. Even the oldest FourThirds camera, the Olympus E-1, produces stunning photographs. The E-5 does even better.

I know it's not popular to say this around here, but if more folks spent more time making photographs and less time worrying about what equipment they were going to buy, the conversation here would be much more interesting.

 

[deejjjaaaa]

or Sony built a m4/3 sensor

it is built already - just crop its area to 43rd size in your raw converter or during postprocessing

 

[deejjjaaaa]

It makes not much sense IMHO to mount a big and heavy 35-100 or 2/150 or 2.8/300 on a M43 body, even a Pro one, as simply the handling of the complete unit would then be sub optimal.

how do you know that it will be suboptimal if that body does not exist ? the mere fact that m43 has shorter flange distance does not mean that it is impossible to build the body like E5 gripwise, it might be thinner around the mount (if we still want to mount m43 lenses), but the grip still will be the same as 2 other dimensions (L x H)... and if you are concerned about the lack of weight - they will put some extra pig iron inside

 

[ptomsu]

how do you know that it will be suboptimal if that body does not exist ? the mere fact that m43 has shorter flange distance does not mean that it is impossible to build the body like E5 gripwise, it might be thinner around the mount (if we still want to mount m43 lenses), but the grip still will be the same as 2 other dimensions (L x H)... and if you are concerned about the lack of weight - they will put some extra pig iron inside

Well, let me put it that way - I just don't see it come!

 

[Tesselator]

douglasf13,
Yup, I tend to agree. The panasonic/oly sensors just aren't as good. The difference my be considered slight for the extreme generalists but for the more discerning and quality concerned the differences are fairy large.

But I just want to chime in on the balance and handling issue. None of the current M43 cameras handle well. They all are clumsy and poorly laid out. It's not too much of an issue with an ultralight pancake lens on but if you add even the 7-14 not to mention the 14-140 or 100-300 the whole system balance falls apart. And all the clumsiness of the layout becomes entirely too obvious. Some may choose to shoot with meticulous and methodical finger placement, just plain deny it, or not have the relative experience to know the differences but most people I read seem to agree. Oly seems to fair a little better than Panny but it's about the same thing. So, considering this, mounting "a big and heavy" whatever lens on a M4/3 body can't be and isn't any worse. I do it often and find I have to do the same operational workarounds and make the same handling sacrifices as I do with the m43 lenses that were built for the camera.

I like my m43's don't misunderstand... But I'm aware of and willing to acknowledge it's shortcomings too.

BTW, this topic is directly related IMO to "taking good photographs". Handling and operation is a very big part of the photographic creative process. Informing ourselves can only lead to improvements - either in the way we do things ourselves or in what the camera companies come up with in the next round(s) of releases.

 

[jonoslack]

According to those more knowledgable than myself, the problem with m4/3 and 4/3 sensors right now isn't tied to size as much as most believe. The IQ advantage that Sony APS-C sensors have right now over m4/3 is based on the sensor tech itself, where Panasonic (similar to Samsung APS-C) just isn't building a sensor that competes with Sony on the pixel level. If Panasonic built an APS-C sensor, or Sony built a m4/3 sensor, the gap would still be there, albeit a bit less.

Sensor size is important, but there are a lot of pieces to the puzzle.

Hi Douglas
I completely agree with this - the difference in sensor size really isn't such a big deal . . . the difference I see is that Sony are making much much better sensors than Panasonic. That, and the fact that Olympus seem to be simply refusing to make the compact professional quality body that the E1 suggested is the only thing that keeps me out of 4/3 at the moment; the lenses are always the lure back on board.

Actually, if Panasonic built an APS-c sensor and Sony a 4/3 sensor I'm willing to bet that the Sony 4/3 would still show real advantages over the panasonic APS/c

The 4/3 sensor is 13.5mm high, the APS c is 16.7mm this really isn't so much!

 

[ptomsu]

Hi Douglas
I completely agree with this - the difference in sensor size really isn't such a big deal . . . the difference I see is that Sony are making much much better sensors than Panasonic. That, and the fact that Olympus seem to be simply refusing to make the compact professional quality body that the E1 suggested is the only thing that keeps me out of 4/3 at the moment; the lenses are always the lure back on board.

Actually, if Panasonic built an APS-c sensor and Sony a 4/3 sensor I'm willing to bet that the Sony 4/3 would still show real advantages over the panasonic APS/c

The 4/3 sensor is 13.5mm high, the APS c is 16.7mm this really isn't so much!

Main issue is, that the sensor in the E5 is only the already aged 12MP version. If it would be the latest 18MP version of the GH2 results would be MUCH better, as I can tell from the results of the GH2. I cannot say if better than the latest APSC Sony sensors, but pretty much the same till 6400.

Actually I think all this ISO peeping is same as pixel peeping, who really needs it? look at the M9, its max. sensitivity is ISO2500 and it delivers better results than a Nikon D3S or D3X just because of the lacking AA filter and the reason that if higher ISO levels are not available people start thinking how else they can get great results in available light - also called creativity!

While I had the E5 for testing I also compared it at same moderate ISO level to the D700, which actually one would call an unfair comparison, just because of the differences in sensor size. But actually I liked the results from the E5 more up till ISO1600, much more natural compared to the very "plastic" look of the D700, already in the range of ISO1600. Of course the E5 is more grainy, but actually I found I prefer the more grainy look compared to the more clinical plastic look of the D700. And the Zuiko Pro grade lenses are definitely superior to the Nikkor counterparts.

Then at ISO 3200 and 6400 the D700 wins in most situations, but this is for the price of an even more "plastic" look. I agree that in some cases the ISO6400 results from the E5 are not even useable anymore, but end of the day in most situations when using the Zuiko high speed zooms (2.0) and limit below ISO 3200 I like the Oly results much more.

Had Olympus only used the new GH2 sensor in their E5, this camera would have been the absolute killer DSLR and no discussions necessary