I am glad the OMD seems to be a match at the time being for your current needs and current wants, but to say that this is *the photographic silver bullet* (yes, saying that no other camera manufacturer has anything in their lineup which only comes close is a bit like saying this), is a bit of a far reaching fantasy statement, don't you think?
The photographer matters far more anyway, by several miles.
the question is, how much better the results from the Fuji really are.
I think that there are several considerations here in parallel. I actually did not ant to buy the OMD as I already stated, but since I could not get the Fuji (still not even available here in Austria) I started looking around for a travel cam, which the D800E will not be (too big). I finally saw a size side by side comparison of the Fuji and the OMD and having also read all the phantasmic reviews of both, I drove to my dealer and could try the OMD and it clicked. Cheaper than the Fuji, much more glass available (I knew already) and an excellent built in EVF and much smaller, but not too small for my hands.
So is the IQ of the Fuji better - sure, but for my taste not so much that I could not survive with the OMD. Same for high ISO .... etc. etc. - I think you are getting my point
So I gave the OMD a try and here I am - pretty happy with it. Sure, no one can say for how long it will stay my favorite camera, but I think there are many others in here, who are doing even worse than me And it comes pretty close to the ideal travel camera for me!
What I really want to see from Pana or Oly are some pro grade zooms and maybe also some pro grade primes. Think we need to wait and see over the next months .....
you see I am not improving in my habits - kind of difficult at my age.
While what you say is very true, there will always be the intriguing factor of "the new" for me. If this was not the case I would be dead, not sure how others feel about that but t least I feel like that
Anyway the OMD is - as I already stated - coming pretty close to a perfect travel cam - for now
PS: WRT "the photographer matters far more ..." I completely agree, but as soon as a camera goes out of my way almost completely and still offering me a lot of freedom and quick influences of the final image, I would be silly not to choose this tool as the preferred tool. Or why should I make my life unnecessarily hard?
PS: WRT "the photographer matters far more ..." I completely agree, but as soon as a camera goes out of my way almost completely and still offering me a lot of freedom and quick influences of the final image, I would be silly not to choose this tool as the preferred tool. Or why should I make my life unnecessarily hard?[/QUOTE]
Me thinks that buying a new system and learning its quirks is harder or making your life harder, photographically speaking.
1 Member(s) liked this post
Fuji vs. OM-D:
After trying the Fuji, for me it became very apparent that it's a camera that works excellently with it's own, native lenses but that I didn't find nearly as nice for manual focusing, but that's me. When it comes to image quality, the Fuji is in a class by itself, particularly at high ISO. The problem for me with that camera is the price and the limited selection of lenses. One 90mm and an ultra-wide would probably solve that. But as it is now, the OM-D represents a lower priced alternative with excellent handling and a very nice selection of lenses.
OM-D vs. the world:
While I don't always subscribe to Peter's view of the world, I have to agree that there aren't many compact solutions that offers the same level of usability and image quality combined. The K-5 would be the only other candidate for me and in the real world, they seem to come very close with regards to image quality as well as ergonomics. The Pentax lens line-up is missing a bit at the wide end however, the same way as m4/3 is lacking at the long end. The WA-lenses are there, but they aren't that spectacular, particularly considering the fact that they are primes and not cheap at all.
As for the Ricoh: It doesn't have a built-in viewfinder, just like the new fancy Pentax cameras. For me, that's a total deal breaker. A K-5 with the Fuji sensor would be nice, but alas... the world isn't created like that.
for sure nobody has to agree with my view of the world I am here for fun and photography is my passion but not my profession, alone this may describe some decisions and views of the world from my side ....
WRT K5 with Fuji sensor - actually I would like to see an M10 with a FF Fuji sensor, this would really be a BIG set forward IMHO. Even better a S3 with a Fuji sensor ....
But as you said the world isn't created like that
Biggest thing is definitely the built in EVF, which is completely out of my way when I am shooting, I cannot say anything better than that. Only thing which might be improved in the future is resolution , but already with 1.4MP this is enough to no longer be noticed as electronics in between the photographer and the final composition of the image.
Terry - I'm faintly surprised that the OMD comes close at low ISO, because I don't think it comes close to the M9 IQ at base ISO. But perhaps your 'close' was a charitable kind of close.
But as I say - it's an apples and oranges type comparison, whereas the NEX7vsOMD is definitely apples vs apples.
Just this guy you know
Even little things like the SCP that everyone raves about is a bit annoying. You can touch the item but you still need to hit the physical OK button to start making changes to the item you've highlighted. Once you hit OK you are then out of the SCP and into the parameter being changed. Want to change two things...repeat the process.
I compare that to Panasonic when you touch the quick menu item, your options are then visible and you can then touch the value you want. Fuji you go to quick menu and navigate (no touch) to the parameter you want to change and then use the control wheel to make the change always staying in the quick menu.
Unless I'm doing something wrong you still need to cycle through different views to see highlight/shadow clipping. So wanting level and clipping can't be done together. Histogram can't be on all screens as well. You want to keep these things available, it incases the number of button pushes and screens you need to scroll through.
MySets - Sony is the worst with no custom settings. Panny on the mode dial (yeah). Fuji in the quick menu. Oly a convoluted process for setting them up and invoking them especially if you don't always want to use one consistently and even worse if you change a setting it seems to change the MySet.
Getting a smaller focus box, still don't have this working correctly.
Don't get me totally wrong here. it is the best Oly I've used to date but setting it up and getting through the gear menu is still very cumbersome.
you are right - but obviously I have become humiliate sign of my age ....
I am already happy with what Oly in the OMD gives me today, not saying it could - and SHOULD - not be improved.
On the other hand, I almost never setup any custom settings, so I cannot even comment on these. I only found my Fuji X10 pretty complicated to operate, even setup the easiest and most straight forward things, not sure how much more advanced and easier the X Pro 1 is, but I assume it will use similar logics.
WRT smaller focus box, this is a feature i also would like to have easily available on the OMD and it is a bit rust rating it is not there from the first release already.
Another advantage for the Nex is the shallower DOF. The kit lens for the Nex allready allwos to isolate the subject somewhat from the background, and the 24/1.8 Zeiss has the same effect like a 17/1.2?? would have on the Oly.
Some weeks ago most users agreed that the dx-sensor size of the Nex has a clear IQ advantage over the smaller m4/3 sensors. Has the Oly sensor improved so much?
And if so - how good would be the next generation dx sensor?
Overall, if we keep in mind that many of us use this kind of camera as a light/small alternative additional to a bigger camera system I would think the Oly makes maybe more sense-because it is smaller lenses, weather proof, and with the fast AF more flexible.
Saying all this my prefered walkaround camera has been the x100 lately. Why?
Because of the OVF.
>Have you tried the Olympus 14-150?
1. I have the 14-140mm
2. Need IS for the GH2 because of video
3. Video on the OMD showed very bad aliasing (may be improved by lower in camera sharpening and contrast)
Still one of my questions is how does the OMD compare to the GH2 at lower ISO in pure image quality terms.
But that's the sweet thing about m4/3; the best of two worlds, and apart from batteries, most things are interchangeable.
What is interesting for me in this process is what happened this weekend in trying to test out the different systems. But first I will start a little further back. When the NEX7 came out, I thought I would keep and NEX 5N side by side with the NEX7. However, what I found was that the two cameras were sufficiently different and both unique enough that it was too hard to remember what functions I put where. So, if I were to have two camera bodies I found it would have to be two NEX7's.
For me with the Fuji everything is where it is supposed to be.
I hadn't shot the Sony in about two weeks and I felt like I was fumbling to find things and it was frustrating to me. So, I'm feeling a bit like the Sony is great if it is your only camera and you use it a lot and you have muscle memory of where the controls are. However, as a secondary system, that you don't pick up everyday once you need to venture past aperture/shutter/ISO you can start to fumble around.
The Oly to me is a middle ground. Lots of button are user configurable so you can forget things but you do have the super control panel as a fall back.
So, while I was never one of the naysayers about the Sony interface, I am finding it a little less likable when you use more than one camera system at a time.
The PanLeica lenses 25mm and 45mm Macro really made it on the OMD.
And to get back on topic (and sorry to got off topic before) - I didnt spend too much time but I could not tell which of the samples posted by Jono I would prefer. Which kind of tells me-at least in this sample-there might be no IQ advantage of the Nex vs the OMD here (again just for me)... which I dont like because I own the Nex and not the OMD
Last edited by Terry; 7th May 2012 at 13:58.
OK, I've now hacked up this thread and gotten rid of the M9. Hey, it is time for some spring cleaning to make way for the Magic M10 anyway.
www.terrybanet.com3 Member(s) liked this post
If I get hold of an OM-D, I will certainly check it against my GH-2 without its AA filter. I do not expect to see anything "better" in terms of resolution.
My NEX-7 is clearly better than the modified GH-2 (which is slightly better than a stock one) when it comes to resolution.
The Fuji is a niche camera (and so is the NEX 7 at the moment), made to compete as an 'enthusiasts' rangefinder, and while it obviously is possible to compare sensors with the E-M5, it isn't comparing like for like if you want to buy a camera outfit.
I don't want something to mirror or replace my M9, I want a camera system that can do things my M9 can't do (and it can't do much actually, except produce superb images). And compared with the E-M5 I'm sorry, but the Fuji can't do much either. Two different camera design philosophies are not supposed to be compared head to head except to feed idle curiosity. It doesn't matter which has the best sensor if some other apsect of the camera can't work for you.
I quite agree about the Fuji - different thing - Terry thinks so as well, she's trying to decide what to have as well as the Fuji - just like I'm trying to decide what to have as well as the M9.
However, I don't think the NEX7 is a niche camera - it's part of a successful range, and if the native lenses available are not as complete as m4/3, there's no reason to believe they won't be in a year or so.
From my point of view the NEX7 and the OMD cover very similar ground. This test was to try and discover whether the sensor of the NEX7 showed a huge advantage over the OMD at base ISO . .
all the best
Just this guy you know
So far, and this is a very short time, what I'm finding is the NEX7 begs to be used a lot to be intuitive and get the memory of what you've assigned to which button especially the center button. Yes the tri-navi is very easy because the three main parameters are there. However, if you don't really remember exactly what you've put in each spot the Sony really does slow you down. So, once you put it down for two weeks and used another camera you do have a bit of a learning curve again. In this regard the OMD's super control panel makes life easier.
I even start to think that overall I might prefer the 5n user interface over that of the 7. For some reason I get the feeling that too many buttons where each button can serve several functions is too complicated for my limited brain. In this regard the multi wheel function stuff of the Nex7 combined with the menustructure is not intuitive for me.
For some reason I think I felt beter with the 5n (which I still have kept).
I have tried several times now but I think the Nex7 is just not for me. I will probably let it go and use the 5n again instead.
I am interested in checking out the OMD as well - it sounds from your experience that the omd is more intuitive to use.
Confusing dials and buttons in the NEX-7 will not yield optimal results and skew the resolution comparisons. Major impediment.
I thought it was exactly what is typed. Very serious and factual. Too many dials and buttons and menu navigation are an impediment to photography.
Camera should not get in the way.
At least I took care of one button: http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/sony/3...-nuisance.html
Please excuse me if I thought I was being part of a discussion (several posts above me appear to discuss related to what I posted). My bad.
Well I quite agree Vivek - if you're confused about which button is which then you aren't likely to get the best out of the camera - both in terms of IQ, and of course, more importantly, in terms of IC (Image Content).
Terry, I think you hit the nail on the head here - if you're in the swing the NEX7 is lovely to use, but if you haven't picked it up for a few days it's less than intuitive. The OMD isn't like that . . . I haven't actually tried putting it down for a week or so, but it was absolutely obvious how to use straight away.
The other thing is a truth with Sony's small camera division - when the next NEX appears, you can be fairly sure that everything will have changed all over again.
Which leads back to my original issue . . . how much does one lose in terms of IQ by shooting the smaller Olympus sensor?.
. . . . .
Just this guy you know
I didn't have that particular experience with the OM-D, it was quite confusing to me out of the box.The OMD isn't like that . . . I haven't actually tried putting it down for a week or so, but it was absolutely obvious how to use straight away. Which leads back to my original issue . . . how much does one lose in terms of IQ by shooting the smaller Olympus sensor?.
As far as IQ, the OM-D will never give the shallower DOF of an APS-C which is why, as an adapted lens geek, it's the 7 for me. Not resolution-related, but I consider it part of the IQ.
Does there exist some sort of translation chart of DOF between 2X crop factor vs 1.5X? For example, will a f/1.5 on m4/3 feel more like a f/2.0 or f/2.4 equivalent on APS-C, and what is the translation to FF?
f6.3 on a m4/3 sensor would deliver comparable DOF like f8.0? on dx and like f11 on full frame.
Not that shallow DOF would be allways preferable- but one has more flexibility to use it if one wants.
A 50/1.4 for example is roughly equivalent in field of view & DOF to 100mm f/2.8 on m4/3, and ~75/2 on APS-C.
I.e., multiply the focal length and the f/stop by the crop factor.
wow, thanks, I didn't know I can multiply the f-stop as well as the fov. In that case, I need a 25mm f/0.5 lens...
A distinction is as good as a rest!
all the best
Just this guy you know
I disagree, Robert. With adapted lenses that aren't corrected for the thick stack of glass on a m4/3rds sensor, the DOF charts go astray.
Just look at and think about why the "photographing your bokeh" thread exists and fluorished. There is a direct relationship between between the thick filter stack and and the fuzz generated.
A certain camera company actually took pains to reduce the sensor glass thickness to the bare minimum just to avoid these aberrations.
So, it is just not a matter real estate that determines the DOF.
Naturally, the system m4/3rds lenses (the fly by wire variety) take these aberrations into consideration and are corrected accordingly.
>for me however I really like the larger depth of field of the OMD for nature and close up work, where there will still be plenty of bokeh
For landscape often too.
>. . . If I want to shoot people with a short depth of field I'll use full frame.