No más 4/3rds after E-5....

[Terry]

both

Setting aside that you personally like the D3s better.

I could shoot ISO 100 on both cameras and set the Oly to f2 and the Nikon to F4 and shoot two stops faster with the Oly. Agree?

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

I will take 12mp of D3s vs your 12mp of E5... and then I might actually live w/ 300/5.6 w/ bigger DOF and yet have cleaner ISO at 3 stops higher... if the cost of the camera is an issue - old D700 will do at 2 stops higher.

You still have no VR, so at f/5.6 you're 5 stops higher (if IBIS on the E-5 gives at least two stops, and I would be surprised if it didn't). That's ISO 25,600 vs. 800, which would look like this:

But even if you have steady hands and can shoot at the same shutter speed, staying only 3 stops higher, this is what you get:

The above captures are jpegs from the cameras, since RAW from the D3s aren't available at dpr.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

to shoot moving targets ? static targets hand held w/ such big lens ? mostly will be on a tripod so your vr point is moot

I shoot static target with a Nikkor 80-200 AF-S all the time, approximately the same weight as the Zuiko 150/2 and the same reach on a DX body.

D80 with 80-200 AF-S @ 200mm and f/2.8

With the E-5 and Zuiko 150/2, this could have been at ISO 100.

 

[Riley]

Agree, they learned their lessons from Leica Which is good!

I dont think that was ever true, IMO Leica could use a lesson from them.

Someone in Panasonic driving from the business end is a photographer, and knows something of the right mix for a camera. This first became evident in LC1 and D2, moved on through L1 then the compacts.

Presently they have the nicest mirrorless range on the market but I bet theyre watching X100 pretty closely

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Just to complete this before I go to bed. One of the weakest sides of the E-5 sensor is supposed to be shadow noise. Here's a comparison with the E-5 at ISO 800, the D7000 at ISO 1600 and D3s and 1DIV at ISO 3200. That should represent the nominal difference between the sensor sizes (a little bit unfair towards the Canon since it's 1.3 crop, but still).

If we stick with the 300mm lenses, the D3s actually needs the f/2,8 to improve on the results from the E-5, and even then, I suspect that it's a close race (there's no ISO 1600 shot from the D3s available).

 

[ptomsu]

I dont think that was ever true, IMO Leica could use a lesson from them.

Someone in Panasonic driving from the business end is a photographer, and knows something of the right mix for a camera. This first became evident in LC1 and D2, moved on through L1 then the compacts.

Presently they have the nicest mirrorless range on the market but I bet theyre watching X100 pretty closely

Well,

I was referring to optical knowledge, not digital camera knowledge

 

[Riley]

Well,

I was referring to optical knowledge, not digital camera knowledge

I think they just plug it all into a machine now dont they , but ok point taken...

 

[jonoslack]

;-)

- Raist

Lovely photo Ricardo - but that's really grungy bokeh . . . :ROTFL::ROTFL:

 

[raist3d]

Just to complete this before I go to bed. One of the weakest sides of the E-5 sensor is supposed to be shadow noise.

You are making the mistake of comparing JPEG engines for this. Compare the RAWS. Olympus JPEG engine is fantastic but even then in lower light real world situations, you will still get shadows lacking dr. I know this first hand btw, at least comparing to a K-5.

But yeah, you need to see the raws. Now, the very comparison you point out from the website you point out- they have a comparison on shadow recovery on the K-5 and D7000 sensor, and it's pretty obvious just how much more recovery there is.

What's really sad in all this is the poor E-3- the E-5 is cited to provide much more DR when it's ball park similar. The problem is that people think that highlight DR= total DR. The E-3 does much better shadows than E-5 while E-5 does better highlights, but this is because Olympus shifts the tones on the E-5 up by 1 stop coming ISO 200 by under exposing by one stop, and then developing up. Both cameras actually have similar total DR.

I personally think it's easier to control the way the E-3 does it. In the ideal world. Olympus would give us the choice to set the tone shift as we want just like Canon, Sony and Pentax do, so we can optimize highlight vs shadows or shadows vs highlights accordingly (the scenario of a wedding shoot comes to mind: harsh daylight use highlight priority- reception at night- use shadow priority).

Ironically the K-5 has so much total DR that even leaving it in "highlight priority" still gives you lots of shadow DR, though I still prefer the ability to control it because if you are doing low key shots or really subtle lots of shadowy tones, it's still best.

- Raist

 

[Terry]

He clearly stated that he used jpegs because the RAWs weren't available....not a mistake.

 

[raist3d]

Well the mistake is in drawing conclusions about the shadow DR of the sensor from JPEGS

- Raist

 

[pellicle]

I saw the price of the new Canon 300mm f/2.8 today. It's around $6,500. That's just about three times the cost of a Zuiko 150mm f/2.0 which has the same reach on an E-5 as the Canon lens has on a 5DII.

well but then again the sporting crowd use more the 1D and 7D which are more APS sized sensor so its actually more like comparing the 200 f2.8 for effective view similarity and that's only US$780 or so ...

I think that full frame users are probably not always telephoto users ... at least I'm not inclined to use full frame when using anything longer than 100mm

 

[pellicle]

Just to complete this before I go to bed. One of the weakest sides of the E-5 sensor is supposed to be shadow noise. Here's a comparison with the E-5 at ISO 800, the D7000 at ISO 1600 and D3s and 1DIV at ISO 3200. That should represent the nominal difference between the sensor sizes (a little bit unfair towards the Canon since it's 1.3 crop, but still).

I'm so glad to see that others recognise that one needs to compare these things at same DoF and shutter speed ... which of course gives 4/3 an advantage to use the lower ISO over the larger format.

Then you can still bump up the ISO

unless you don't think that the DoF is an issue and should be equalised for....

I sit on the fence on that one, sometimes for, some times against

sometimes I don't think the marginal difference in DoF matters and I just want to open up as much as I can

young Kookaburra by obakesan, on Flickr



other times I just can't get it shallow enough on 4/3 even wide open (and speeds wound up as high as they can go (ISO as low) ...


beach scene - pied oyster catchers and terns by obakesan, on Flickr

but I seldom want for the full frame ... unless I'm deliberately after that shallow look on a normal or wide