OMD vs NEX7 - resolution - discuss

[JMaher]

I . . . 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 . . . If I want to shoot people with a short depth of field I'll use full frame.
/QUOTE]

I agree as well. However it would seem the 45 1.8 and the upcoming 75 could be pressed into service for portraits when necessary.

JIm

 

[jonoslack]

I . . . 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 . . . If I want to shoot people with a short depth of field I'll use full frame.
/QUOTE]

I agree as well. However it would seem the 45 1.8 and the upcoming 75 could be pressed into service for portraits when necessary.

JIm

Hi Jim - quite agree, and will do a perfectly decent job as well.
(the 45 is fine, and I rather lust after that 75)
all the best

 

[Terry]

I like having f1.8 on the 45. I just don't like the minimum focus distance of that lens. Begs for either buying back the 45 macro and having 2 45's or waiting for the 60 macro to arrive on the scene.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

There's also the Sigma 50/1.4 in 4/3 mount which is an ideal portrait lens for m4/3 and will AF on the OM-D. I have one waiting

 

[greypilgrim]

I like having f1.8 on the 45. I just don't like the minimum focus distance of that lens. Begs for either buying back the 45 macro and having 2 45's or waiting for the 60 macro to arrive on the scene.

Hey Terry,
I just carry around a Canon 500D (high quality diopter), and it does really well. I imagine you could use the 250D from Canon as well or the Nikon 4T...

Doug

 

[Vivek]

There is also an expensive, upcoming Kenko tube option.

 

[monza]

f I want to shoot people with a short depth of field I'll use full frame

Agreed. For me, digital APS-C is full-frame. I have no plans to buy a full-frame digital. If I want *really* shallow DOF for portraits, I'll use my Contax 645. Portraits look much better on film anyway.

With adapted lenses that aren't corrected for the thick stack of glass on a m4/3rds sensor, the DOF charts go astray.

So, it is just not a matter real estate that determines the DOF.

I don't know about any of this, but I would venture that real estate is still the overriding factor.

 

[Vivek]

Agreed. For me, digital APS-C is full-frame.



I don't know about any of this, but I would venture that real estate is still the overriding factor.

Whatever that works, Robert.

 

[raist3d]

Well I quite agree Vivek - if you're confused about

Which leads back to my original issue . . . how much does one lose in terms of IQ by shooting the smaller Olympus sensor?.

. . . . .

Do you really want the answer to that question? I shot the K-5 vs the OMD on a back lit subject at ISO 3200 both. The K-5 had notably more shadow data, details, etc. while the EM5 sent them to crushed shadow mush. I may post the shots later. Oh and the K-5 did the same shot when there was a little less ambient light.

But to be frank, I think the IQ of the EM5 is quite good for a wide variety of situations and I think focusing on photography more than these differences is the way to go. If the EM5 didn't have the fast primes it would be a different story but it has them.

- Raist

 

[Terry]

Hey Terry,
I just carry around a Canon 500D (high quality diopter), and it does really well. I imagine you could use the 250D from Canon as well or the Nikon 4T...

Doug

I have a bunch 250D, 500D, 3T, 4T. They are pretty heavy for the teeny 45f1.8 would have to see how it would do on the 12-50 or the Panny 25mm.

 

[ustein]

> and I think focusing on photography more than these differences is the way to go.

This maybe even be at the core of this topic I think.

 

[raist3d]

> and I think focusing on photography more than these differences is the way to go.

This maybe even be at the core of this topic I think.

Sure and to be clear, I think most people should just stop pretending the EM5 does "as well as any APS-C" (or best APS-C) and accept it for what it is. Pros and cons. I see a lot of "oh the EM5 matches APS-C/FF, etc." which is just not true. But it doesn't need to, to be good.

- Raist

 

[nostatic]

I know it won't create images like my now-gone 5D2. But I find the OMD more fun to shoot. So I can have fun getting "lesser" images (though for most of my uses only pixel peeping could confirm that) or I can have a large FF camera sitting in the drawer not getting used.

 

[greypilgrim]

I have a bunch 250D, 500D, 3T, 4T. They are pretty heavy for the teeny 45f1.8 would have to see how it would do on the 12-50 or the Panny 25mm.

I use the lensbaby hood/step up ring to 52mm, and I use a 52mm 500D (or my other 52mm filters). That balances really nicely for me. I standardized on 52mm for all my primes (12, 20, 45, and various nikkors) plus they work on the 14-45 and 45-200.

Step Up/Shade | 37mm to 52mm filter adapter

It also gives me a nice little lens hood that stays on the lens all the time and adds little bulk at all.

Doug

 

[Terry]

I use the lensbaby hood/step up ring to 52mm, and I use a 52mm 500D (or my other 52mm filters). That balances really nicely for me. I standardized on 52mm for all my primes (12, 20, 45, and various nikkors) plus they work on the 14-45 and 45-200.

Step Up/Shade | 37mm to 52mm filter adapter

It also gives me a nice little lens hood that stays on the lens all the time and adds little bulk at all.

Doug

I love this forum. Ordered.

 

[ustein]

>I love this forum

But it is also expensive

 

[greypilgrim]

>I love this forum

But it is also expensive

Yah, the only reason I don't have an OM-D is because they aren't available, and I blame it completely on this forum :ROTFL: (both wanting the camera and it not being available).

Doug

 

[ptomsu]

Do you really want the answer to that question? I shot the K-5 vs the OMD on a back lit subject at ISO 3200 both. The K-5 had notably more shadow data, details, etc. while the EM5 sent them to crushed shadow mush. I may post the shots later. Oh and the K-5 did the same shot when there was a little less ambient light.

But to be frank, I think the IQ of the EM5 is quite good for a wide variety of situations and I think focusing on photography more than these differences is the way to go. If the EM5 didn't have the fast primes it would be a different story but it has them.

- Raist

+1

I do see that there are better solutions out there than the OMD - but the issue is that the OMD is overall such a great solution that it can hardly be topped.

Olympus did a really good job this time! So let's not tighten this success anymore ....

OMD - GREAT CAMERA!!!!

 

[Diane B]

I've been debating that exact thing since I have the 45/2.8 macro. I did get out my FD50/1.8 and Hexanon 40/1.8 with adapters to satisfy me until I make some decision of where to go--next LOL.

I still do have my old 5D which still gives me lovely shallow DOF images but, doggone, I sure have gotten lazy LOL. It doesn't go with me very often these days.

I like having f1.8 on the 45. I just don't like the minimum focus distance of that lens. Begs for either buying back the 45 macro and having 2 45's or waiting for the 60 macro to arrive on the scene.

 

[Diane B]

Ricardo, I'll remember this when I want to quiet that camera lust that is difficult to quell sometimes LOL. I'm still shooting with G3 and haven't decided if/when I'll make a decision to change. I do know I'm shooting a great deal more with m4/3 than DSLR and making adjustments for that.

But to be frank, I think the IQ of the EM5 is quite good for a wide variety of situations and I think focusing on photography more than these differences is the way to go. If the EM5 didn't have the fast primes it would be a different story but it has them.

- Raist