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

[jonoslack]

Add to that IBIS and the high speed zooms with 2.0 and you have an absolutely winning combination. WHich definitely tops all other brands DSLRs and lens combinations.

Hi Peter - that's some praise - I'm really glad you're happy with it.

 

[ptomsu]

E5 with 2/35-100, ISO 200

 

[ptomsu]

E5 with 2/35-100, ISO 3200

 

[ptomsu]

E5 with 35 year old 3.5/50, both ISO 1600, no adjustments in post processing!

 

[ptomsu]

Some more with E5 and 3.5/50 Macro, as my 2/14-35 and 2/35-100 did not arrive yet. Good exercise to work with just 1 focal length again. I start loving this lens

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

E5 with 2/35-100, ISO 3200

This one surprises me. Any noise treatment?

 

[ptomsu]

Standard settings in LR3.3 - see attched

 

[ptomsu]

Another two in C1Pro, again standard settings .....

Again E5, 2/35-100, ISO 3200

 

[raist3d]

When you want to open the lens up more due to lower light and get more DoF in the bargain. That's my usual need. Besides the fact that the 14-35 is likely a better lens anyway, and the E-5 outperforms the A900 in low light.

But that's just hearsay. ]'-)

That is not true, the E-5 doesn't outperform the A900 in low light. Using modern raw conveyers like LR 3.3 gives at best the same kind of 100% view performance, but since the A900 has so much more megapixels than the E-5, for a valid comparison you resize down and the A900 wins that hands down. That is- if the A900 doesn't perform a bit better at high ISO to begin with which could very well be the case. Moreover, the A900 has definitively more DR.

- Raist

 

[raist3d]

+1

What this always shows is that there's some really excellent expertise gathered at Olympus. That bodes well for the future, doesn't it?

The future is all pen, not 4/3rds. Something to keep in mind when buying the 14-35 though if they honor their promise to support it in the prospec body it should be ok.

What I would warn yo about the 14-35 is this: Yes it is very sharp, and nice. Great contrast. It's excellent *but* in moderate to low light it hunts and takes forever to AF. Now if you are a guy that does MF this doesn't affect you at all. But if you rely on AF, watch out. Even on the E-5, has been reported by quite many.

- Raist

 

[raist3d]

Another two in C1Pro, again standard settings .....

Again E5, 2/35-100, ISO 3200

You can see banding in the first shot and these are size reduced to the XGA class size. Most cameras will look great at these sizes and banding is a PITA to get rid of.

But if your target delivery medium is this kind of image size for the web, seems ok (except for the banding of the first).

- Raist

 

[raist3d]

E5 with 35 year old 3.5/50, both ISO 1600, no adjustments in post processing!

These look much better though the burned highlights suggest you had over exposure in a lot of the shot, a good light or somewhat strong light. Plus of course the resize, though Olympus is very good at keeping overall tone up.

- Raist

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Raist,
I don't think many by the E-5 and/or the 14-35 on a whim. They are tools that do certain things extremely well. Very sharp photos at low ISO is obviously the main strength, and that in combination with enormous reach with moderately sized telephoto lenses. My two main alternatives (if I change from Nikon, which is tempting for me at the moment) are this combo or Sony A850 with Zeiss 24-70mm f/2.8. The Sony obviously has more resolution, but not nearly as much as the pixel count indicates, and that combo is somewhat cheaper.

However, if I add a 300mm eqv. prime, the whole equation is turned upside down. The Sony 300mm f/2.8 (and equivalent lenses from Canon and Nikon) is 2-3 times as expensive as the Zuiko 150mm f/2.0 (in Thailand it's three times as expensive), and now we're talking differences of $3-4,000. The same kind of differences can be seen for other telephoto lenses where the reach is similar.

For people like me, who use legacy lenses, Olympus is an ideal solution, and the combination 4/3 plus m4/3 seems to work rather well. Being a GH1 user already, I have a backup camera that will work well for most of what I do.

Although I agree that the future is all Pen, I also believe that future pro cameras from Olympus will include solutions that also cater for the current range of top pro glass. I don't think Olympus will invest in another round of that kind of lenses, and dumping what was probably a considerable investment wouldn't be smart. Not for Olympus and not for the customers. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if we see a hybrid solution similar to what Sony has developed for their SLT cameras, but with m4/3 lens mount and possibly a tailor-made adapter for 4/3 lenses.

Time will show, but whatever happens, a couple of E-5s plus lenses bought today will bring lots of photographic joy for the owner for many years to come.

 

[ptomsu]

That is not true, the E-5 doesn't outperform the A900 in low light. Using modern raw conveyers like LR 3.3 gives at best the same kind of 100% view performance, but since the A900 has so much more megapixels than the E-5, for a valid comparison you resize down and the A900 wins that hands down. That is- if the A900 doesn't perform a bit better at high ISO to begin with which could very well be the case. Moreover, the A900 has definitively more DR.

- Raist

Raist

not sure how you evaluate cameras and how you compare. I know what I am comparing as I had A900, D700, E3 and now E5. Plus I know pretty well how a D3X performs, as a good friend of mine is shooting one.

From what I have seen in my own experience, the E5 is equal or even outperforming a A900 and a D3X at lower ISO - say up to 800 for sure, if you use a pro grade lens on it. Then you see very brutally what all these AA filters are doing and how they are destroying what higher MP count brings. As soon as you move above ISO1600 I would say there is no clear winner, then all of these cameras - A900, D3X and E5 - become somehow tricky to get good results.

But what I have seen from my E5 at ISO1600 and even 3200 are results I am completely satisfied with. I cannot say that from the D700, which without any arguing is dealt as one of the best low light DSLRs. But no noise comes always from lot of processing, which partially is already done inside the camera, even to the RAW outputs. Which takes lot of details away. But for me I rather like all details and do post processing of noise as I like it.

Finally - if I want really high resolution - NOTHING and none of these DSLRs tops my H3D39. But of course only till ISO400 or better even ISO200.

So it is obvious what the E5 brings to me: the most flexible and high quality DSLR I could buy today, delivering results which are not second to much higher MP counts in FF and APSC, of course in combination wit good lenses. If I need more MP I take MFD, if I really would need highest ISO day in and day out I would go for a D3S, or maybe the next incarnation of the camera like a D4S. But as I do not need this I am perfectly happy with my E5 as what it is!

 

[ptomsu]

The future is all pen, not 4/3rds. Something to keep in mind when buying the 14-35 though if they honor their promise to support it in the prospec body it should be ok.

What I would warn yo about the 14-35 is this: Yes it is very sharp, and nice. Great contrast. It's excellent *but* in moderate to low light it hunts and takes forever to AF. Now if you are a guy that does MF this doesn't affect you at all. But if you rely on AF, watch out. Even on the E-5, has been reported by quite many.

- Raist

Maybe I am missin something, but I do not recognize any banding

So maybe there is none, or I am banding blind, which again is good for me as I the can shoot much different cameras without any headache obviously :ROTFL:

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Raist

not sure how you evaluate cameras and how you compare.

I have a list of wants that includes a tack sharp standard zoom, the ability to use legacy lenses, good viewfinder, IBIS, good weather sealing, articulated LCD... do you see where this is leading? :ROTFL:

The fact that I like the output from Olympus cameras helps a lot too of course, as does the detail rendering of the E-5 at low ISO.

 

[bcf]

This one surprises me. Any noise treatment?

Do you mean in good or in bad?

For me, in bad. I do see banding, and a lot of noise. I like Olympus cameras, but lower noise at ISO 1600 or 3200 is important to me, and a D700 would have fared much better for this type of shot.

In a "reportage" type situation, the freedom brought by the ability to shoot at "autoISO" between say ISO 200 and 1600, with a minimal shutter speed, and essentially a noise-free image (or with some easily dealt with noise) cannot be overemphasized.

I still fail to see the point of all this: by getting an E-5 and f/2 lenses, you will get a camera and lenses just as big as heavy as a D700, but limited to ISO 800-1600 at most. I myself like my D700 but find it too big - why would I get an E-5 which is just as big and has less capabilities?

 

[ptomsu]

Do you mean in good or in bad?

For me, in bad. I do see banding, and a lot of noise. I like Olympus cameras, but lower noise at ISO 1600 or 3200 is important to me, and a D700 would have fared much better for this type of shot.

In a "reportage" type situation, the freedom brought by the ability to shoot at "autoISO" between say ISO 200 and 1600, with a minimal shutter speed, and essentially a noise-free image (or with some easily dealt with noise) cannot be overemphasized.

I still fail to see the point of all this: by getting an E-5 and f/2 lenses, you will get a camera and lenses just as big as heavy as a D700, but limited to ISO 800-1600 at most. I myself like my D700 but find it too big - why would I get an E-5 which is just as big and has less capabilities?

I think you just do net get it, which is perfectly fine! I did not get it long time

If you like the clinical output from a D700, which draws everything like under a smoothing plastic skin at higher ISO then it is ok! Maybe for your type of shooting this is essential. For mine it is not.

Second as I already stated, I cannot see banding, but maybe i am blind

Third, why not just be happy with the D700 and continue? I for myself decided to sell this camera and I can tell you one thing for sure: I never was happier than now since I am shooting an E5 with any other DSLR.

Does it mean the E5 is perfect? For sure NOT! I could give you a list with at least 10 items to be improved, first and foremost the sensor be replaced by the GH2 sensor. But for me the E5 has reached a level of perfection which makes it an ideal tool. Which was not the case BTW with the E3.

PS: BTW that smoothing plastic skin is also present at lower ISO level with the D700, whereas with the E5 I have first time the feeling that I can see CLEAR!

 

[raist3d]

Raist,
I don't think many by the E-5 and/or the 14-35 on a whim. They are tools that do certain things extremely well. Very sharp photos at low ISO is obviously the main strength, and that in combination with enormous reach with moderately sized telephoto lenses. My two main alternatives (if I change from Nikon, which is tempting for me at the moment) are this combo or Sony A850 with Zeiss 24-70mm f/2.8. The Sony obviously has more resolution, but not nearly as much as the pixel count indicates, and that combo is somewhat cheaper.

I am not sure what you are trying to say. That's part of what I said. The 14-35 is a fantastic lens. I certainly didn't buy one on a whim. I tested it myself. It is a fantastic lens. Super sharp and great except for the moderate-low to low light AF issue (it does lock focus but takes forever). Many already with E-3, E-30 and even E-5 have corroborated the issue is still there and I have seen it with my own eyes. If you are a MF guy, you have nothing to worry about. If you rely on AF in low light, then beware. I wasn't commenting on your alternatives, but on this lens specifically.

However, if I add a 300mm eqv. prime, the whole equation is turned upside down. The Sony 300mm f/2.8 (and equivalent lenses from Canon and Nikon) is 2-3 times as expensive as the Zuiko 150mm f/2.0 (in Thailand it's three times as expensive), and now we're talking differences of $3-4,000. The same kind of differences can be seen for other telephoto lenses where the reach is similar.

I find that the normal ranges overall, other than the specific example, comes out still very pricey for Olympus, but certainly each individual needs to look at their cost for their needs.

For people like me, who use legacy lenses, Olympus is an ideal solution, and the combination 4/3 plus m4/3 seems to work rather well. Being a GH1 user already, I have a backup camera that will work well for most of what I do.

Although I agree that the future is all Pen, I also believe that future pro cameras from Olympus will include solutions that also cater for the current range of top pro glass.

That's sort of what I am expecting. Otherwise the backlash will be huge.

I don't think Olympus will invest in another round of that kind of lenses, and dumping what was probably a considerable investment wouldn't be smart.

It's a sunk cost. You can't take into account what you spent on these lenses. I actually think new micro four thirds pro spec lenses will come out and eventually the 4/3rd lenses discontinued in production though still supported.
That's fine by me. I say that too because there's no point in going small and carry big lenses.

Not for Olympus and not for the customers. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if we see a hybrid solution similar to what Sony has developed for their SLT cameras, but with m4/3 lens mount and possibly a tailor-made adapter for 4/3 lenses.

That's certainly possible.

Time will show, but whatever happens, a couple of E-5s plus lenses bought today will bring lots of photographic joy for the owner for many years to come.

Sure.

- Raist

 

[raist3d]

[self nuked post].