OMD vs NEX7 - resolution - discuss

[jonoslack]

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

Hi Ricardo
funny you should say that - there are great deals on the K5 at the moment, and my son has just put his A77 and lenses on ebay, so that he can go back to 16mp with the K5 - I think he's right . . . Me? I think the IS on the OMD probably makes up for the difference, and I'm much too slow to photograph anything which moves anyway

The k5 is a fine camera, one of the few I really miss. (I don't miss QA with Pentax lenses however).

 

[jonoslack]

> 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.

Hi Uwe - it absolutely is for me . . . It's a case of IQ vs IC (Image Quality vs Image Content). the best camera is the one that allows you to get the best IC with a respectable IQ.

The reason I started this thread is that I wanted to discover how much sacrifice in IQ was involved in getting IC with the OMD - which it really is good at!

One of the things which hasn't really been discussed . . . . but which really is relevant when we talk of high ISO . . . is the IS on the OMD - it really is splendid - much better than I've experienced before . . . . 600mm equivalent at 1/15th - that's madness, but I have pictures to prove it!

the reason I don't have an S2 - or a D800, and I've never gone to MF, is because all of these moves seem to me to be a decision in favour of IQ, at the cost of IC . . . (and don't imagine I'm not tempted!!! - my hand was quivering over the buy button for a D800e and lenses last night . . . )

 

[JMaher]

Not that I have the same acquisition problem that many do on this forum but I canceled my D800 preorder a few days ago when I ordered the OM-D. I like the idea of a camera that may make it easier for me to take more pictures with better content.

Jim

 

[smartwombat]

For me the requirement is pretty much the same, can I get the content I want (motorsport) at the quality I need?

The E-P1 was a non-starter, because of the lack of EVF.
GH-1 came close in ergonomics and features, but AF and burst speed are too slow.

Of course my trusty Canon 1D series and white lenses will do the job, but since my car accident I can't even lift a pro body let alone with a 70-200 or 300 prime.

So as an interim measure (it's going to be a year I think before I'm rehabilitated enough) I was looking for a camera I can use while the skin graft beds in and the scarring reduces.
So far the OM-D EM-5 fits that fine.

Coupled with my bagful of OIS Panasonic micro 4/3 lenses I think that the OM-D may be capable enough.


PAul
Oh yes, Jono - I am that Wombat ...

 

[Paratom]

Hi Uwe - it absolutely is for me . . . It's a case of IQ vs IC (Image Quality vs Image Content). the best camera is the one that allows you to get the best IC with a respectable IQ.

The reason I started this thread is that I wanted to discover how much sacrifice in IQ was involved in getting IC with the OMD - which it really is good at!

One of the things which hasn't really been discussed . . . . but which really is relevant when we talk of high ISO . . . is the IS on the OMD - it really is splendid - much better than I've experienced before . . . . 600mm equivalent at 1/15th - that's madness, but I have pictures to prove it!

the reason I don't have an S2 - or a D800, and I've never gone to MF, is because all of these moves seem to me to be a decision in favour of IQ, at the cost of IC . . . (and don't imagine I'm not tempted!!! - my hand was quivering over the buy button for a D800e and lenses last night . . . )

Here I say it: for me the size of a camera is often not so much the factor which makes me bringing it or leaving it at home.
More important is for me: do I enjoy to use the camera? and do I get the results I expect from it.

The worst chance to be taken with me has a camera which disappointed me. I mean when I have used it, believe to have caught some nice moments, and then - seeing them on my display having mushy images.

For me- for example- a nice big viewfinder makes it much easier to take images.

I am not talking against small cameras, and I prefer them for example on bike tours, or when going out in the evening, or on business trips. But for most use I dont see a bigger size of a camera as a real reason not to bring it.
In case of the S2 (and the same would be true for a D800 or 5d) I got a small backpack which takes the camera+ lens + 1 additional lens (if needed).
Plus room for a bottle of water, and some treats for the kids. This is just a small daypack- no monster photo backpack.

I totally agree that the best camera is the one which is used a lot, no matter which camera this would be.

 

[ustein]

>for me the size of a camera is often not so much the factor

I am in the same boat but we cary two sets. I think more and more DOF makes a difference pro and also con FF.

Right now we use the set of gear for the task at hand. Often the D800 and 5D2 and other times the NEX-7 (have no OMD right now).

 

[pikme]

my son has just put his A77 and lenses on ebay, so that he can go back to 16mp with the K5.

Jono,

Just curious - what were his reasons for this?

thanks,

 

[douglasf13]

As these pixel pitches get smaller and smaller, lens selection, stability, stabilization on/off, etc. all make quite a bit of difference in looking at these cameras. Really, it's about how big you print. Assuming identical conditions and lens quality, the NEX-7 should print a few inches larger on each side than the OM-D, but that often gets skewed by other factors. The Sony 24mp sensor is still the best non-35mm sensor around, but the difference is often slight in use.

 

[jonoslack]

Hi Douglas
I think the truth is that unless you're going to print really big, all the modern cameras will do fine.
We are in Cornwall right now, and the house is decorated with pictures taken in 2004 some with the the Kodak 14n, but most with the Olympus E1. 19" prints on the whole, and they look just fine.
The thread was not really meant to be a pixel peeping exercise so much as to get a handle on what was lost. For me the answer is:"not enough to make up for being able to use a Leica 60mm macro with Image Stabilisation".

A month in, I'm having a ball with the OMD

 

[nostatic]

While this may be a silly reason, the silver/black one I ordered way back when showed up. It is even more fun to shoot than the black one, especially with the silver 45/1.8 on the front of it. That combined with Aperture now supporting raw make life good.

The silly things that go into like/dislike of a tool.

 

[douglasf13]

Hi Douglas
I think the truth is that unless you're going to print really big, all the modern cameras will do fine.
We are in Cornwall right now, and the house is decorated with pictures taken in 2004 some with the the Kodak 14n, but most with the Olympus E1. 19" prints on the whole, and they look just fine.
The thread was not really meant to be a pixel peeping exercise so much as to get a handle on what was lost. For me the answer is:"not enough to make up for being able to use a Leica 60mm macro with Image Stabilisation".

A month in, I'm having a ball with the OMD

Hi, Jono. That's really all I meant by my above post. Prints will look better at a given size with the NEX-7 in a vacuum, but, usually, there are enough outside circumstances to nullify the advantage, especially when handholding. I occasionally see the difference between my 5n and NEX-7 at 13x19, but not usually. The same goes for the NEX-7 when compared to larger sensor cameras like the M9 or A900.

The interesting thing is how many factors up the different sensor sizes compare. If the OM-D compares favorably to the NEX-7, and the NEX-7 compares favorably to the A900 (or M9,) does the OM-D compare favorably to the A900, or is that too far of a stretch?

 

[monza]

Image stabilization on the OM-D is frankly amazing. I put a 105DC Nikkor on a silver one - which clearly has better image quality than the black - and when the IS was active it was like shooting in slow motion...got sharp shots down to about 1/10th second. This completely transforms use of adapted teles.

The NEX 7 on the other hand has a micro 4/3 sensor built-in for no extra charge. Just crop as needed.

 

[barjohn]

I just tested the 9-18mm for CA correction in LR 4.1 and here are the results using lower right corner of image at 100%

 

[Terry]

John, instead of linking to the url of the gallery page scroll down and use the top of the two URL's listed at the bottom of the page. That will properly put the images in the thread at full size.

 

[Terry]

As these pixel pitches get smaller and smaller, lens selection, stability, stabilization on/off, etc. all make quite a bit of difference in looking at these cameras. Really, it's about how big you print. Assuming identical conditions and lens quality, the NEX-7 should print a few inches larger on each side than the OM-D, but that often gets skewed by other factors. The Sony 24mp sensor is still the best non-35mm sensor around, but the difference is often slight in use.

In theory yes but the monkey wrench is the aspect ratio difference and then of course getting the perfect paper size :facesmack:

NEX7 6000x4000
OMD 4608 x 3456

 

[barjohn]

Finally got it right. It has been a while since I posted and I had forgotten how.

 

[Godfrey]

I was almost going to press the like button . . . . and then I thought of myself and realised that your post sounds like:

Famous Last Words

Oh no, i'm not going that route. Missed this comment a week or two back.

I'm continuing on the path to simplification. Now that I have the M9 and GXR, and a bit too many lenses, I'll reduce further on the unused gear flopping about here. Just sold another FourThirds lens tonight. Eventually, all the SLR gear will be gone (other than my Nikon F... ;-), all the extraneous bits too.

I am tempted by the Leica X2. As close to an original Barnack as a digital camera can be, I suspect. Simple controls, just the one lens, clip on viewfinder, compact but not too small to hold properly. To see if that's the way to go, I've fitted the Skopar 35/2.5 to the M9 and will be shooting with that (almost) exclusively for 1000 photos or three months, whichever is longer. If that works out, and I buy the X2, I'll reduce the excess kit even further.

It's tough to want less in the modern age. I only want more photos that I am happy with.

 

[jonoslack]

I am tempted by the Leica X2. As close to an original Barnack as a digital camera can be, I suspect. Simple controls, just the one lens, clip on viewfinder, compact but not too small to hold properly. To see if that's the way to go, I've fitted the Skopar 35/2.5 to the M9 and will be shooting with that (almost) exclusively for 1000 photos or three months, whichever is longer. If that works out, and I buy the X2, I'll reduce the excess kit even further.

It's tough to want less in the modern age. I only want more photos that I am happy with.

I really like the X2 - I wish it focused a bit closer, and I wish it were 50mm equivalent, but otherwise it's a fine camera - very responsive, it gets out of the way. Nice!