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

[Jorgen Udvang]

Congratulations with your decisions. After having ruled out the alternatives, one after the other, I'm moving towards the same decision.

Counting my pennies and making the final decision next week.

 

[nugat]

You will be satisfied, Jorgen and Peter.
You will get into the best glass in the photo world and optimal imaging.

 

[jonoslack]

Ok, I know I am totally crazy, but today I did it!

Returned my D700 and lenses and will get my E5 with 14-35 and 35-100 in about 2 weeks.

All my test, research and RAW processing proved that the E5 in combination with high grade Olympus lenses is by far outperforming even FF cameras like the D700, even in combination with the best Nikon zooms from 14 to 200.

At least up to ISO 1600, which looks more than ok to me in combination with high speed lenses!

Hope it would have arrived already

Great Stuff Peter
I hope you really enjoy it - I'm sure you will, those lenses are lovely (and I always loved my E3). Just one thing . . . where's that 12-60 for those lighter moments?


all the best

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Great Stuff Peter
I hope you really enjoy it - I'm sure you will, those lenses are lovely (and I always loved my E3). Just one thing . . . where's that 12-60 for those lighter moments?


all the best

Not a question for me, but here's my take anyway:
Interestingly, the 12-60 is a lens that never fascinated me. Maybe it's because of the relatively slow aperture at the long end, maybe it's because the 14-35, the 11-22 and the 14-54/II are all sharper as well as having faster apertures.

I've come to the conclusion that that I have increasing problems accepting lenses with weaknesses. Not because I'm a pixel peeper, but because I'm not a pixel peeper. And I have a bad memory. I can't run around trying to remember that this lens isn't really sharp in the corners at 12mm and f/2.8, or this one shouldn't be extended beyond 220mm.

And I hate having to check images for sharpness, and then find that this really lovely shot can't be printed bigger than a thumbnail because the lower right corner looks like mud. (Unless of course it is mud, which it is a number of the places where I take photos, but that's another advantage using Olympus: the lens and camera is mud, dust, water, marmalade as well as coffee resistant.)

It's so much simpler with a lens like the 14-35: It's sharp from 14mm to 35mm and from f/2.0 and up. Period. It does throw overboard most of what I've said the last few years about wanting a lightweight kit, but unless something sensational appears for m4/3 this year, it is the sharpest standard zoom in town, and if you only count those that offer IS, it's very far ahead of any competition.

Which was one of the reasons for the start of this thread: a standard zoom that is sharp across the frame from f/2.0 and offers IS, offers so much advantage compared to the competition that the need to shoot at ISO 3200 or above mostly disappears. It's that simple.

 

[bcf]

It does throw overboard most of what I've said the last few years about wanting a lightweight kit, but unless something sensational appears for m4/3 this year, it is the sharpest standard zoom in town, and if you only count those that offer IS, it's very far ahead of any competition.

Well, to each his own

For my use, having to carry this humongous, 915g lens is utterly unthinkable, except perhaps for events or weddings. But travelling with this lens, doing street photo with it, I shudder...

 

[Paratom]

Peter,Jorgen - congrats on the E5 and it sounds very good.
I agree with two things:

1) I hate pixel peeping and testing and returning lenses etc etc. To have a good lens which works fine at all f-stops and over the whole range is a real releaf.

2) IMO the high high ISO are overrated. Once upon a time when I shot film (allready had some fast M-glass) I mostly prefered 50 and 64 ISO films over 200 ISO and got along fine for most of my photography.
With the M8 and M9 I feel I can shoot many things at ISO 640 and lower.

So with f2.0 and ISO1600 one should be pretty flexible.

For my taste I prefer good low ISO color and tonality over the last little bit of high ISO performance.

 

[JMaher]

Congratulations on the E5. It sounds like it will suit your needs. However, I also wonder about the 12-60. When I shot an E3 it was by far my favorite lens.

Jim

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Well, to each his own

For my use, having to carry this humongous, 915g lens is utterly unthinkable, except perhaps for events or weddings. But travelling with this lens, doing street photo with it, I shudder...

Ah.... but that's what m4/3 is for. GH1/2 with Pana 7-14 plus a couple of primes make an incredible travel set. And when really light/small is required, there's the GF2 or E-PL2 with Pana 20/1.7. Still the same system with the same (more or less) sensor and with lenses that are downwards compatible. In a crisis, the E-PL2 can be used as a backup for the E-3 with the same lenses. Try that with a Canon G12 and an EOS 1Dsomething...

 

[ptomsu]

Great Stuff Peter
I hope you really enjoy it - I'm sure you will, those lenses are lovely (and I always loved my E3). Just one thing . . . where's that 12-60 for those lighter moments?


all the best

Jono,

much appreciated, I am meanwhile sure I will enjoy it. I did a lot of investigation upfront and a high percentage of my tests was pointing me to this system.

I will follow up wit some more lenses, especially the 12-60, but for the deal in exchanging my D700 system this is what I got.

I am very happy

Peter

 

[ptomsu]

Ah.... but that's what m4/3 is for. GH1/2 with Pana 7-14 plus a couple of primes make an incredible travel set. And when really light/small is required, there's the GF2 or E-PL2 with Pana 20/1.7. Still the same system with the same (more or less) sensor and with lenses that are downwards compatible. In a crisis, the E-PL2 can be used as a backup for the E-3 with the same lenses. Try that with a Canon G12 and an EOS 1Dsomething...

Jorgen,

what is actually your experience with EPL2? Is it a real step up on IQ compared to the EP2 (which is already a great performer)?

Thanks

 

[Godfrey]

Hmm. I see Peter is ordering his E-5 and Jorgen is on the verge. I hope you enjoy it as much as I do.

I'm delighted with this camera. It does exactly what I wanted and feels great doing it. And, thus far, I've seen nothing in the image quality it produces to compel me to think of another system.

 

[jonoslack]

Not a question for me, but here's my take anyway:
Interestingly, the 12-60 is a lens that never fascinated me. Maybe it's because of the relatively slow aperture at the long end, maybe it's because the 14-35, the 11-22 and the 14-54/II are all sharper as well as having faster apertures.

I've come to the conclusion that that I have increasing problems accepting lenses with weaknesses. Not because I'm a pixel peeper, but because I'm not a pixel peeper. And I have a bad memory. I can't run around trying to remember that this lens isn't really sharp in the corners at 12mm and f/2.8, or this one shouldn't be extended beyond 220mm.

HI Jorgen
I quite agree . . . . but my 12-60 was sharper than my 11-22 and the 14-54 (never had the big f2 zooms), and was also perfectly useable at all focal lengths . . . or at least, I was never aware of a limitation!
I nearly always stop using lenses which have caveats about their use, for the same reason (I can never remember quite what the problem was). . . . . but the 12-60 never seemed to have problems!

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Jorgen,

what is actually your experience with EPL2? Is it a real step up on IQ compared to the EP2 (which is already a great performer)?

Thanks

Just tried the E-PL2 briefly in the shop. No idea about image quality so far. I'm trying to decide between that and the GF2 for compact. The latter, I can get as body only, which makes it half price compared to the Olympus with a lens that I don't want (zoom or 17mm), so the Panasonic is tempting. OTOH, the Olympus has IBIS and a better EVF. Choices, choices...

 

[ptomsu]

Just tried the E-PL2 briefly in the shop. No idea about image quality so far. I'm trying to decide between that and the GF2 for compact. The latter, I can get as body only, which makes it half price compared to the Olympus with a lens that I don't want (zoom or 17mm), so the Panasonic is tempting. OTOH, the Olympus has IBIS and a better EVF. Choices, choices...

Just because of the better EVF and the IS I would take the EPL2. I am also considering this one as a compact alternative t the XZ1, which seems to have fairly good IQ, but of course falls behind a m43 camera.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

There are apparently some sample variations. Generally, it's seems to be an excellent lens, but those I have talked with so far (not very many) claim that the 11-22 is sharper and has less distortion at the wide end while the 14-54/II is sharper at the long end.

One of the advantages with the 14-35 is that each copy is probably tested individually (which the price reflects). Apart from weight and size, I haven't heard a single negative comment about that lens. Tried it again today on an E-5. Subjectively, the viewfinder with that lens seems bigger and brighter than on my D300 with the Tamron 17-50, but that may also be because I want it to be that way

I attended a press conference today. As usual in this country, there were mostly Canons. Many interesting comments when I pulled out the GH1 with 7-14, switched to Xpan mode, positioned myself in front of everybody else and still got the shot with everything in the frame that should be there

HI Jorgen
I quite agree . . . . but my 12-60 was sharper than my 11-22 and the 14-54 (never had the big f2 zooms), and was also perfectly useable at all focal lengths . . . or at least, I was never aware of a limitation!
I nearly always stop using lenses which have caveats about their use, for the same reason (I can never remember quite what the problem was). . . . . but the 12-60 never seemed to have problems!

 

[ptomsu]

There are apparently some sample variations. Generally, it's seems to be an excellent lens, but those I have talked with so far (not very many) claim that the 11-22 is sharper and has less distortion at the wide end while the 14-54/II is sharper at the long end.

One of the advantages with the 14-35 is that each copy is probably tested individually (which the price reflects). Apart from weight and size, I haven't heard a single negative comment about that lens. Tried it again today on an E-5. Subjectively, the viewfinder with that lens seems bigger and brighter than on my D300 with the Tamron 17-50, but that may also be because I want it to be that way

I attended a press conference today. As usual in this country, there were mostly Canons. Many interesting comments when I pulled out the GH1 with 7-14, switched to Xpan mode, positioned myself in front of everybody else and still got the shot with everything in the frame that should be there

Just wait till you have the E5 and 14-35, then you will be taken serious again

 

[Paratom]

There are apparently some sample variations. Generally, it's seems to be an excellent lens, but those I have talked with so far (not very many) claim that the 11-22 is sharper and has less distortion at the wide end while the 14-54/II is sharper at the long end.

...

Oh God,
sample variation - again - I hate that.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Oh God,
sample variation - again - I hate that.

Nothing compared to my Tamron 17-50. Variation within one lens, changing over time. Just as I thought I had it under control (lower left corner at 17mm), the whole upper third becomes unsharp at 50mm. No, nothing seems loose, but I guess something is anyway.

 

[jonoslack]

One of the advantages with the 14-35 is that each copy is probably tested individually (which the price reflects). Apart from weight and size, I haven't heard a single negative comment about that lens. Tried it again today on an E-5. Subjectively, the viewfinder with that lens seems bigger and brighter than on my D300 with the Tamron 17-50, but that may also be because I want it to be that way

Well, okay, but I dangle in front of you the Sony A900 with the Sony Zeiss 24-75 - roughly the same weight, the same price and definitely brighter viewfinder. Not weathersealed however . . . . On the other hand, mine's been out in the rain on a number of occasions without apparently suffering.

I've not heard a negative comment about the 14-35 either, apart from it's size and weight, and it being a pity that it doesn't go a bit wider.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Well, okay, but I dangle in front of you the Sony A900 with the Sony Zeiss 24-75 - roughly the same weight, the same price and definitely brighter viewfinder. Not weathersealed however . . . . On the other hand, mine's been out in the rain on a number of occasions without apparently suffering.

I've not heard a negative comment about the 14-35 either, apart from it's size and weight, and it being a pity that it doesn't go a bit wider.

Interesting that you mention that. After all my research, and I've done a lot this time, my conclusion is that the two best normal zooms when all factors are considered, are the Zuiko and the Zoyss. Then it boils down to other elements. Weather sealing is obviously one. Another, which may not be important for all people and that counts in the direction of Sony, is that Olympus lacks a couple of primes that are important to me.

The most obvious omission is a 135mm eqv. It's easily fixed with a 50mm plus TC of course, but a TC is a TC, and to make it a fast combo, it would have to be with the Sigma. I don't know if anybody have tried that.

Then of course the Zoyss 135mm isn't exactly what you'd call a compact lens, but it's clearly one of the most desirable out there. The 85/1.4 on one of the crop bodies would also do that job beautifully. That's what I use with Nikon.

And there's the big unknown, the SD1, and the rumoured m4/3 pro body (and hopefully matching lenses). I was offered a reasonable price for some of the Nikon gear yesterday, so I've started the migration process, but to what? Zeiko?