Site Sponsors
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 120

Thread: E5 vs D700--tests

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Warsaw, Poland
    Posts
    188
    Post Thanks / Like

    E5 vs D700--tests

    I just got two packages : E5 and Nikkor 24-120/4 VR.
    I will have a chance now to compare (E5 with 12-60mm and nikkor on D700).
    Any requests, suggestions?
    Last edited by nugat; 26th April 2011 at 05:34.

  2. #2
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    etrigan63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Earth, Sol System (near Miami, FL)
    Posts
    2,501
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    High iso lowlight shots are of interest to me.
    Carlos Echenique | Carlos Echenique Photography |Olympus OM-D E-M1 MK II | Olympus Pen-F - M.Zuiko 17mm f/1.8, M.Zuiko 25mm f/1.8, M.Zuiko 45mm f/1.8, Rokinon 12mm f/2 NCS, M.Zuiko 75mm f/1.8, M.Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO, M.Zuiko 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO

  3. #3
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    How about the corner and edge quality at different focal lengths with the zooms wide open?

    Just this guy you know

  4. #4
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,610
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    Quote Originally Posted by nugat View Post
    I just got two packages : E5 and Nikkor 24-120/4 VR.
    I will have a chance now to compare (E5 with 12-60mm and nikkor on D700).
    Any requests, suggestions?

    I think it is a futile exercise. If you can use the same lens on both the cams, that will show the differences and those will be predictable.

    One thing to test (regardless of the lens used) would be a 30s exposure shot.
    Again, here, I believe that the D70 will triumph.

  5. #5
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    I think it is a futile exercise. If you can use the same lens on both the cams, that will show the differences and those will be predictable.
    I agree that it's got it's limitations, however, I'd be very interested in the camparative performance of those two lenses - they are, after all, of an equivalent focal length, and a very useful one as well.
    I've always thought the 12-60 as one of the very best zooms . . . . and the older nikkor 24-120 one of the worst (especially with regard to corner and edge performance) I'll be interested to see whether that's still the case.

    Just this guy you know

  6. #6
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,875
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    Quote Originally Posted by nugat View Post
    I just got two packages : E5 and Nikkor 24-120/4 VR.
    I will have a chance now to compare (E5 with 12-60mm and nikkor on D700).
    Any requests, suggestions?
    As I am working with the D700 right now (my backup for MFDigital) I would be interested if

    1) high ISO up to 3200 is comparable
    2) if it is true that the E5 sensor is able to deliver better detail as Olympus is telling is in the marketing messages? Also better dynamic range and out of the camera colors.
    3) How good the AF of the E5 is compared to the D700 - I know this is a bit unfair, but would like to see if it is at least as sensitive and working in bad lightning etc. Not talking about sophisticated auto-follow of subjects, here the D700 is the clear winner and this would be unfair.

    Is there any chance to get some getter glass? Maybe Zuiko 2/14-35 for the Oly and Nikkor 2.8/24-70? These are some of the high end lenses in both systems, so it would be a fair comparison. I fear that the lenses you currently have for test are rather imposing several upfront issues, as their quality is good, but not top - MHO

    Thanks anyway for taking this effort

    Peter

    PS: BTW, I started looking closer into the E5 and some reviews and I am getting more and more interested in this beast - especially in combination with Zuiko 2/14-35 and 2/35-70. Never say never again . Man, this forum costs me money .....

  7. #7
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,933
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    Quote Originally Posted by nugat View Post
    I just got two packages : E5 and Nikkor 24-120/4 VR.
    I will have a chance now to compare (E5 with 12-60mm and nikkor on D700).
    Any requests, suggestions?
    I find such comparisons uninteresting, personally. I already know what a D700 can do, and I've already become quite aware of what the E-5 can do in technical terms. I'm quite satisfied with the E-5's capabilities and my current lens kit.

    Buying the E-5 cost me quite a lot less than choosing to change systems ... buy a D700 and a whole new kit of comparable lenses ... for whatever small advantage a D700 kit might provide to my work. This is a much more important comparison than comparing technical differences of these camera's capabilities. Both are highly competent 12Mpixel bodies with excellent lenses backing them up.

    Greater differences between what they produce in photographs rest on how photographers use them, imo, than in what they are technically capable of.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Warsaw, Poland
    Posts
    188
    Post Thanks / Like

    first impressions

    I took both combos on a walk today around sunset. Click for a click, both in "P", VR/IS on. I believe now that nikkor 24-120/f4 VR is a great piece of glass, equal to Zuiko 12-60.
    Image Quality:
    Jpegs:
    Up to 1600ISO I like E5 pictures better. More detail and better color/DR. But Nikon Jpegs suck, we know that, and Oly's fly.
    From 3200ISO D700 wins.
    Raws:
    Unfortunately there is no common platform to compare (exept dcraw-don't have that).
    In LR3 up to 1600 ISO, E5 jpegs win over Nikon Nefs, IMHO.
    Above that NEFs win , 6400ISO NEF give a pleasent film-like grain, Oly's are unusable IMHO.

    We are not surprised, are we?
    2x diagonal gathers 4x light, and noise is 1/4- all other things being equal (of course they are not). D700 at 6400 Iso gives a very nice grainy picture, E5 at 1600 ISO struggles.
    Nikon and Oly jpegs and NEFs were all seen in LR3 .
    Until we get ORFs in LR3 I do not undertake to compare raws directly.
    Sorry no pics, but just got back home.
    PS. I compared those first pics on EIZO monitor fed from iMac i7/LR3, also at 100%. My gut feeling is prints from those two combos would be very similar in IQ whatever the ISO.
    PS.PS. I like E5 more for ergonomics. Love at first sight (never touched E3 before). D700 live view is unusable IMHO, on the Oly's articulating LCD it's perfect.
    PS.PS.PS.
    Given Vivek's and Godfrey's reservations I'll end here, they dissuaded me from the "uninteresting futile excercise" successfully.
    Last edited by nugat; 9th November 2010 at 10:42.

  9. #9
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,610
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    nugat (I apologize for forgetting your name), Post lots of pictures. Start a "fun with E5" thread.

    Glad that you like the E5 for many of the things it has to offer.

  10. #10
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,875
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    As I said already a good comparison would be at a reasonable ISO value for both - say 200 or 400 - to compare RAWs with top lenses from both systems.

    Think this is the only way to see how Olympus does with their processing engine in the camera and also how the always praised E system lenses can hold up (or are even better) compared to Nikon latest glass.

    That we have advantages at ISO levels above 1600 for the D700 is no surprise, actually this is one of the main reasons I am using the D700.

    Thanks anyway for doing these tests.

    PS: I for myself am very interested in such tests and actually do not understand why they should not be done.

    PS1: who does not like to read some results can also decide not to do so just go off this thread and do not look back again

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Warsaw, Poland
    Posts
    188
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    I have access to 4/3: 50/2 , 25/1.4, 14-35/2, 35-100/2 and nikkor: 24/1.4, 50/1.4, 105/2.8VR.
    Which pairs would you like to see compared and at what f# and ISO?

  12. #12
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,933
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    I never said not to do such tests: I simply said I don't find such comparison tests very interesting or informative. Other kinds of comparisons are much more interesting to me.

    In the spirit of producing useful information about the Olympus E-5 to those who are interested in it, I posted a set of simple ISO test shots a couple of days after I took it home. The original exposures were made casually ... hand-held in my office. The page was originally built with the in-camera JPEGs.

    I've since been processing E-5 files in Lightroom 3.3RC using the technique of changing the "E-5" model descriptor in the EXIF data to "E-30". So today I added two renderings of the ISO 6400 exposure using the same .ORF files from October 23. On one, I left the Detail panel settings (sharpening and noise reduction) at the LR3.3RC defaults. On the other, I added some sharpening and noise filtering. The results are posted at the bottom of this page:

    http://www.gdgphoto.com/Olympus_E-5-ISO_check/

    In my opinion, ISO 6400 is very usable and produces quite satisfactory results with a little care in rendering. It may not compete directly with the Nikon D700 ... with photosites of about 4x the area, the D700 ought to have another stop or two sensitivity to work with ... only makes sense.
    Last edited by Godfrey; 9th November 2010 at 12:14.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Warsaw, Poland
    Posts
    188
    Post Thanks / Like

    6400 ISO

    As I said I don't undertake to compare raws from different developers (or those with forced different camera EXIF tag) , so here is a 6400 ISO from D700 and E5: 100% crops and full scene.
    50/1.4G and 25/1.4D respectively. EXIFs embedded to check.
    NEF to full JPEG 100% crop and Oly JPEG 100%, no post except crop.
    The most difficult light for any camera: very warm (2500K) tungsten old fashioned bulbs.
    Of course we can now dissect WB, focus, exposure, compression etc etc until somebody proves that one or another was handicapped. I took enough pictures on D700 and EP1 before, to say that E5 does not differ from EP1 in the worst possible light and at 6400 ISO, while D700 manages (barely). 2 stop difference is still there. The laws of physics unchanged for the time being.
    Of course if the 6400 ISO test is conducted in good light, the results will be levelled and to some viewers equally acceptable. But what's the point of such amplification in good light?
    PS. I should also add why take hand-held pictures in such a bad light in the first place? Other than photojournalism (or rare specialty needs) , it is hard to imagine needing 6400ISO, ultrafast (f1.4) lens and slow shutter with IS.
    Photography after all is "drawing with light" not with "noise". I personally rarely find interesting light drawings needing more than 1600 ISO. BUt that's personal of course.
    Last edited by nugat; 26th April 2011 at 05:34.

  14. #14
    Senior Member RichA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    544
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    Quote Originally Posted by nugat View Post
    I just got two packages : E5 and Nikkor 24-120/4 VR.
    I will have a chance now to compare (E5 with 12-60mm and nikkor on D700).
    Any requests, suggestions?
    Resolution will be identical, or nearly so. Before, I'd give the edge to the D700 based on comparing it with a D300, but against the E-5, which has no AA filter, the Olympus might edge it. In terms of noise, there will be no contest, the D700 will clobber the E-5. I'd pay attention to deep blue skies at low ISO. Likely the E-5 will show noise in it on close examination.

  15. #15
    Senior Member m3photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    28

    Drawing with Light

    Quote Originally Posted by nugat View Post
    Photography after all is "drawing with light" not with "noise". I personally rarely find interesting light drawings needing more than 1600 ISO. BUt that's personal of course.
    Excellent point.
    Thanks for the comparison work.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Warsaw, Poland
    Posts
    188
    Post Thanks / Like

    Zuiko 12-60 and Nikkor 24-120VR resolution charts

    I mounted both on E5 and D700 respectively.
    $ for $, pixel for pixel, f-length for f-length, aperture for aperture.
    Both at native 200 ISO.
    Both with wide open apertures at a given f-length: widest end, 50mm FF equivalent and top telephoto.
    Tripod, focus bracketing, release cable, mirror LU, you name it.
    >100% crops of respective center and corner resolution patterns.
    All EXIFs embedded, so everybody can pull all the info needed.
    Conclusions are also left to each viewer.
    Thank God I am leaving tomorrow for the long weekend for Vilnius with ...one of the combos.
    No more silly tests, just the pure pleasure of photography.
    Cheers.
    PS. Nikon NEFs developed in LR3 and converted directly to jpegs (nikon ooc jpegs are really worse). Olympus ORFs are same resolution as JPEGs in Olympus Viewer. Therefore LR3 JPEGs are used for comparison. LR 3 does not offer E5 raw compatibility yet.
    Last edited by nugat; 26th April 2011 at 05:35.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Warsaw, Poland
    Posts
    188
    Post Thanks / Like

    Zuiko 12-60 and Nikkor 24-120VR resolution charts PART 2

    last two pairs.pick your favorites.
    Last edited by nugat; 26th April 2011 at 05:35.

  18. #18
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,875
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    From those results the E5 looks like a no brainer if you request clearly higher IQ at normal ISO.

    Impressive results!

    Thanks for your efforts again!

  19. #19
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: first impressions

    Quote Originally Posted by nugat View Post
    In LR3 up to 1600 ISO, E5 jpegs win over Nikon Nefs, IMHO.
    Above that NEFs win , 6400ISO NEF give a pleasent film-like grain, Oly's are unusable IMHO.

    We are not surprised, are we?
    yes, I am - and impressed and heartened too - I'll be really glad to see that Oly have finally cracked it with an excellent camera.

    Still interested to see the comparison between those two 'take away' 24-120 lenses on corner and edge resolution.

    all the best
    Jono

    Just this guy you know

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Warsaw, Poland
    Posts
    188
    Post Thanks / Like

    corners etc

    the corner stuff is in the crops (one cam/glass combo shows CA in most corner crops)
    12-60mm zuiko olympus (oly) and 24-120mm nikkor VR (nef)
    to make things easier:
    100133 oly 12mm/f2.8
    100160 oly 25mm/f3.4
    100188 oly 60mm/f4
    5411nef 24mm/f4
    5426nef 50mm/f5.6
    5432nef 120mm/f4
    Last edited by nugat; 10th November 2010 at 15:00.

  21. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Warsaw, Poland
    Posts
    188
    Post Thanks / Like

    ooops, correction

    First (hope-last) mistake. For "normal" 50mm f-length (25mm Oly) I gave the wrong crops of Nikon. They (nef 5426) were at f5.6 and not as should have been wide open at f4. Oly was wide open 25mm/f3.4 (100160).
    Hereby the right pair of nef originating jpegs from Nikon 50mm/f4 #5429 to be compared directly with Oly 25mm/f3.4 #100160.
    Sorry for that.
    Last edited by nugat; 26th April 2011 at 05:35.

  22. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Warsaw, Poland
    Posts
    188
    Post Thanks / Like

    Back with some E5 pix

    Just got back from Vilnius (Lithuania) with some pics to look at.
    I decided to take only one combo: E5+12-60mm zuiko. Because of the semi-official character of the visit and almost no private time I thought carrying two large sets would be unpractical (if somewhat weird to my hosts).
    I also know D700 well enough to compare it's behavious from memory , I believe, in given situations. Of course it'd have been better to have pics from both...Under the circumstances I should adjust the title of this thread to
    " very subjective comparison...". Let it be.
    The weather most of the time was lousy, near freezing, iron skies spilling icy rain, wind...Becasue of the low contrast most of the time, I decided to set JPGs to "dramatic effect", which increases contrast in camera. I also had raws written down. At some points I also took JPEGs in "natural" effect position. I know the "dramatic effect " is just a gimmick and will wear off very soon. Well , I liked it for the gig. I took it off for night pics.
    The E5 was either in P or A, all pics with the 12-60mm zuiko.
    All pics no post whatsoever, not even crops. I used Oly Viewer (hate that soft). The raws were converted straight to max quality jpegs, no manipulation (ca 2:1 compression, visually lossless).
    You will see two galleries: 1)Vilnius 2010 and 2)Vilnius 2010 (raw>jpg).
    The first one is is 1280x960 impressions of the city, a lot of OOC "dramatic effect".
    The second is a choice of Olympus Viewer raws>jpegs (big, 3-7MB) with the possibility of download for pixel peeping. In two cases you can compare jpegs OOC (picture number ending with a "b") with the ones from Olympus Viewer conversion of ORFs to JPEGs (picture number ending with "a").
    All EXIFs included. Please pay attention to what ISO was used when.
    Only for personal use, please. Copyrights in force/embedded. You need to write the address below (without start/end):
    STARThttp://gallery.me.com/nugat#galleryEND
    Last edited by nugat; 14th November 2010 at 17:34.

  23. #23
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,875
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    So what are your general conclusions comparing the D700 with the E5 ????

  24. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Warsaw, Poland
    Posts
    188
    Post Thanks / Like

    E5 and D700--subjective comparison

    Subjective comparison, that's what it should have been called from the beginning: as the time , resources and willingness needed for an objective scientfic "test" were never at my disposal nor in my plans.
    I am not a pro, barely an enthusiast. I have been looking for a "system" (camera + lens, preferably one main lens) to serve my hobbyist needs for some years. I went through early Canon Rebels, Leica and primes, Canon FF (5D and 5Dm2), micro 4/3, Nikon FF (D700) and now finally Olympus E5 and Zuiko glass. I did not like early rebel digital quality, Leica prime hassle and price, Canon focus, micro 4/3 flimsiness and Nikon color.
    I liked all those systems for their many merits and the Nikon D700 has been for sure the best overall camera I have ever used. If my living depended on photography that would be the system for an exclusive use. That's what the pros use after all for a reason.
    I was also intent on minimizing my lens line, hopefully to one walkabout universal zoom and 1-2 fast primes. When E5 appeared it was the only contender in sight for my D700 and the new 24-120VR .
    I have used the E5 for barely a week now. And after the week here is an enthusiast's verdict: D700 or E5?
    And the answer is....
    E5.

    BODY.
    I have both systems in front of me.
    Both look very good with their 24-120 (12-60) zooms.
    D700 is bigger and more "heavy" looking. Especially the VR glass adds heft.
    I take them in my right hand (I am an average 5'11''/180cm male). Yes, the Nikon is "ever so slightly" too big. Some 20%. In fact that 20% matters a lot when you walk the whole day with the camera in you right hand (the way I like is with the strap around the foreram, so even when I let the grip go the camera hangs there safely). For big guys the difference is negligible, for smaller individuals --not so. The E5 simply feels better in my hand for hours on and on.
    I take the cameras to my eye. Nikon has a bigger VF and can be turned on one hand with the index finger (in fact it does not matter as I leave both cameras on at all times). It has additional dedicated controls for exposure pattern and AF. The Olympus has a great articulating LCD with actually useful and usable one-button live view. The Nikon LV is a joke by comparison. I never liked it and rarely used. I like the good LV and the articulating LCD a lot. All other than above aspects of ergonomics are a wash for me. Overall , for an enthusiast, slight advantage Olympus.

    LENS
    I knew there is something about Zuiko when I put my 50/2 macro onto GH1 an saw the best picture pixel-for-pixel overall from any glass, Leica non-excluded. That from a 400$ small and light prime.
    What I was not ready for, is that the level of performance can be maintained from HG grade (semi-pro, SHG is "pro") Zuiko ZOOM lens. The 1000$ 12-60mm/f2.8-4 Zuiko is the most amazing piece of glass I have ever owned. Small and light (580g) for it's features, it matches my best primes so far at all f-stops and f-lengths (except of course it's slower than Hexanon 60/1.2 or Summilux 35/1.4). Surprisingly enough it matches in IQ the dedicated 4/3 primes such as zuiko 50/2 or summilux D 25/1.4. Not only in resolution but also all other aspects of picture quality.
    The 24/f1.4 on D700 is also amazing. The best piece of fast/wide prime glass ever mounted on best FF sensor for truly clean high ISO photography. In my tests that combo reaches 2300lw/ph, and the 6400ISO still has nice photo grain to it. Unbeatable. I was hoping the new 24-120/4 VR will be the main walkabout lens and the 24mm the choice prime to constitute the whole system. The 24-120VR is a very good lens, definitely better than the old non-VR one and in some opinions matching the f2.8 line of zooms.
    But Zuiko is overall better. More uniform performance across the frame, smaller, no annoying (to me) VR sound. (E5 is overall quieter than D700).
    I tried the 25/1.4 summilux D as the low light prime for my E5. It is 2 stops gain allright. But is it really worth the hassle? The AOV is somewhat too narrow for my liking and the 12mm at f2.8 really meets most of my needs when in 1600 ISO. Of course it's good to have this Lux in reserve.
    The best combination would be one D700+24/1.4 and one E5+12-60.
    If I was to choose one combo, it's Olympus again.

    SYSTEM
    The Nikon AF might have an edge for fast moving subjects (sports pro reporting). Maybe also at very low light levels, but a serious test is needed here. For me Oly AF is suffciently good for my needs.
    I don't like Nikon picture, especially jpegs, and I like what comes directly from Olympus, whether raws or jpegs.
    I am fairly proficient at LR, but don't enjoy postproduction.
    With Nikons it's always a lot of post to get what I like. JPEGs are hopeless, corrections of raws first, then NIK output Sharpener at the end. All the work in front of the computer (my family hate me too for that) I do not enjoy at all.
    When I saw JPEGs from EP1 some time ago I just loved them. Same with E5 now with one additional remark. The raws (ORFs) and JPEGs ar so sharp I need no NIK sharpener any more. This is really amazing, but the E5 pics are almost too sharp for my EIZO ColorEdge 1920x1200, 24 inch monitor. The pixel pitch on it is too big for them and single pixels are outlined and visible when you look close at 100%! Only on the main monitor, Apple iMac 27 inch the pixels disappear at 100% as the monitor resolution is bigger than EIZO's and the pixel pitch is smaller.
    I have never seen anything like that before at the pixel level. So the "pixel sharpness" exists after all...?
    In fact, I do not care so much for pixel peeping, 100% and such.
    When in web/email mode my pix are 1280 wide for compatibility.
    When displaying they are 1920x1080 in HD projection.
    When printing at A3+, any such digital particularities like pixel sharpness or noise are very well levelled off.

    CONCLUSION
    I am an enthusiast, not a pro, and enjoy travel with my camera (also in rain, fog, wind) much more than sitting in front of the computer.
    I also dislike changing lenses and too much work on focus, exposition etc.
    I am a lazy amateur that likes his camera handy and pictures to look good
    (to family and friends).
    I like to send the pics from my laptop from my trips.
    I like my equipment dependable and solid.
    I am not a night predator.
    I like to be slightly different.
    I like Olympus E5.
    Last edited by nugat; 15th November 2010 at 02:09.

  25. #25
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    HI there
    Thanks for that
    Excellent - I'm really pleased to see that the E5 is such a good upgrade. I always knew what a wonderful lens that 12-60 Zuiko is. . . . and how good the Olympus colour is compared to Nikon.

    It seems that they really have come up with a winner this time. I'm really glad to hear it as I've always had a soft spot for Olympus.

    Now, why can't they make a smaller professional quality body? The features of the E5 in a body the size of the E1 with a shutter like the E1, and I'd be back to Olympus in a flash. Pentax have made the right body in the K5 - but the zoom lenses really aren't in the same league as the Olympus equivalents.

    all the best

    Just this guy you know

  26. #26
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,875
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    @ nugat

    Thanks for this test, I especially like it as I am currently in Nikon and D700 when it comes to DSLR. I had the E3 and it did not work for me as the AF did not work properly - maybe only my camera - so I sold all that years ago.

    Always loved the Zuiko glass and like to hear that the E5 seems to be a great camera. Will make me think wether I should go back to Oly again. Would also love some of their high speed zooms (14-35 and 35-100).

    Great test, great effort!

    Peter

  27. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Warsaw, Poland
    Posts
    188
    Post Thanks / Like

    "Dramatic effect"

    Thanks Jono and Peter.
    Best to borrow an E5 body to play with, I guess.
    I'll have some SHG (f2) glass to play with soon.
    Peter.

    PS.That's what "dramatic effect" pseudo HDR does to contrast and resolution. Use with caution.


    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    @ nugat

    Thanks for this test, I especially like it as I am currently in Nikon and D700 when it comes to DSLR. I had the E3 and it did not work for me as the AF did not work properly - maybe only my camera - so I sold all that years ago.

    Always loved the Zuiko glass and like to hear that the E5 seems to be a great camera. Will make me think wether I should go back to Oly again. Would also love some of their high speed zooms (14-35 and 35-100).

    Great test, great effort!

    Peter
    Last edited by nugat; 26th April 2011 at 05:35.

  28. #28
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    Very interesting thread. Thank You.

    What I dont understand is that everybody states that as good as m4/3 sensors are there is a clear difference/disadvantage specially in DR and noise compared to larger sensors.
    Now here it sounds (which I do not doubt) like the 4/3 does compare very well (except the very high ISO).
    Is the E5 sensor better than m4/3 sensors?

    I am also someone using the D700 and Nikon system but I follow new DSLRs because I am not 100% happy in 2 points:
    1) Microdetail and skintones; I find my D700 images sometimes to look a bit artificial and skintones yellowish
    2) weight vs bulk of lenses: While I want the optical quality of the professional zooms I find them pretty bulky and heavy; I could accept a little slower lens but want the optical quality. Canons approach with the 24-105/4.0 and with the 80-200/4.0IS I find appealing. Some of the Oly lenses (in this case the 12-60) sound appealing too.

    Anyways-very interesting and thanks for posting

  29. #29
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,875
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    I have similar issues with Nikon. To understand me right, the D700 plus all the new 2.8 glass 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 is GREAT. But very bulky! And it only gets you till 200 on the wide end. Anything in professional quality above that gets expensive (VERY EXPENSIVE) and heavy and bulky. The 200-400 for example, far too expensive and to heavy for me! For wildlife photography all animals would disappear when they see that lens

    Anyway, I did not find any camera in FT which would have come close to the D700. I am not talking about D3X which would be my favorite, but this cam again is TOO heavy and bulky and expensive. And if I want higher resolution nothing will top my H3D39 anyway

    The E5 seems to be the first pro DSLR for FT which comes pretty close to my needs. With all the wonderful Zuiko glass and maybe some Sigma primes if I want that. I am seriously considering if I should not change. Especially I am interested in the 14-35 as my standard lens and the 35-100, which must be a marvel. I owned the 2/150 with my E1 and I would go for that again, nothing can top this lens in that tele range. And if I get completely convinced, the 2.8/90-250 would be a great supplement, although pretty expensive! Well what you get is then a 2.8/500 in FF 35 - WOW!

    And not to forget that these lenses could also be used on M43 with the right adapter - maybe not really as good and fast as on an E5 body, but ....

    And if one can believe what Olympus tells the market, then there will be a Pro level camera for both M43 and 43 in the next time. Which would then hopefully work with a Kodak sensor again or at least with the new 18(16)MP Pana sensor of the GH2.

    Kind of a bright future I think ... or am I wrong again?

  30. #30
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    I have similar issues with Nikon. To understand me right, the D700 plus all the new 2.8 glass 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 is GREAT. But very bulky!

    . . . snip . . .

    Especially I am interested in the 14-35 as my standard lens and the 35-100, which must be a marvel. I owned the 2/150 with my E1 and I would go for that again, nothing can top this lens in that tele range. And if I get completely convinced, the 2.8/90-250 would be a great supplement,
    But the trouble Peter is that these lenses are ALL very bulky (pretty much the same as their Nikon counterparts).

    Just this guy you know

  31. #31
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    Quote Originally Posted by t_streng View Post
    What I dont understand is that everybody states that as good as m4/3 sensors are there is a clear difference/disadvantage specially in DR and noise compared to larger sensors.
    Now here it sounds (which I do not doubt) like the 4/3 does compare very well (except the very high ISO).
    Is the E5 sensor better than m4/3 sensors?
    I think it's the same sensor isn't it?

    What gets me is everyone going on about how small 4/3 sensors are in comparison, but actually, in terms of height, there really is very little difference, more in width, but of course thats 3:4 rather than 2:3 aspect ratio.

    There isn't any reason why 4/3 sensors shouldn't be within a gnat's crotchet of APSc in terms of high ISO and quality . . . just that they haven't been in the past.

    all the best

    Just this guy you know

  32. #32
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    83
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    Hi Nugat, thank you for taking the time to run the so called 'subjective comparison" and sharing the results with us. Good to know that you like it as much as your D700.

    cheers and have a nice day

    ric

  33. #33
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    I think it's the same sensor isn't it?

    What gets me is everyone going on about how small 4/3 sensors are in comparison, but actually, in terms of height, there really is very little difference, more in width, but of course thats 3:4 rather than 2:3 aspect ratio.

    There isn't any reason why 4/3 sensors shouldn't be within a gnat's crotchet of APSc in terms of high ISO and quality . . . just that they haven't been in the past.

    all the best
    yes, depends also which format one uses more. if you crop the 3:2 full frame to 4:3 fromat the difference is much smaller than cropping a 4/3 to 3:2 format.

    Still people say dx is better than 4/3 and ff better than dx, and now we say the new generation 4/3 is as good as ff?

  34. #34
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,933
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    I think it's the same sensor isn't it?

    What gets me is everyone going on about how small 4/3 sensors are in comparison, but actually, in terms of height, there really is very little difference, more in width, but of course thats 3:4 rather than 2:3 aspect ratio.

    There isn't any reason why 4/3 sensors shouldn't be within a gnat's crotchet of APSc in terms of high ISO and quality . . . just that they haven't been in the past.
    The E-5 sensor is the same sensor family as the E-PL1/etc but uses a different anti-aliasing filter and different (higher performance) supporting hardware/firmware to output the image data (both raw and JPEG), which makes a significant difference.

    I went from using Canon 1.6x sensor cameras to Pentax 1.5x sensor cameras to FourThirds. Since I prefer the squarer format, a 7.5 Mpixel FourThirds camera nets approximately the same pixel density as I was getting out of the other two formats' 10Mpixel class cameras when it comes to how I framed my photos.

    I haven't seen a drop in image quality comparing the several tens of thousands of prior images to the FourThirds image stock of similar size. There are certainly differences in sensitivity but they're much smaller than the rumors and myths would have you believe. Going from the K10D to the L1 cost a little less than a stop's sensitivity with the raw tools of that time. Now ACR and Lr3 have advanced and the L1 is at par with the K10D. The E-5 is a couple of generations development later and nets a 2-3 stop improvement over that generation/size class of camera sensors.

    This puts it on par with the best in this sensor size class. "Full Frame" sensors of the same density have 4x the photosite area and so generally are a bit more sensitive, by 1-2 stops.

    But sensitivity is not the only metric by which to judge camera performance, just as megapixels isn't either. There's a lot more to camera performance than that, and then there's lens performance on top of it.

    All I can say without getting goofy about it is that the E-5 gives me the flexibility and produces results that I am very satisfied with, and that my clients will be very happy with its output too.

  35. #35
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    178
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    I'll bet that the lens selection helps. Some people have switched to the latest, best dSLR and now don't find the lenses that they need:
    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=36924786

  36. #36
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    Quote Originally Posted by clark666 View Post
    I'll bet that the lens selection helps. Some people have switched to the latest, best dSLR and now don't find the lenses that they need:
    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=36924786
    Exactly Clark. That's me
    Worth mentioning that the reason for buying the Pentax (no switch, just an extra) was to use the Pentax limited prime lenses, and to buy something which seemed to be the spiritual successor to the E1 (my alltime favorite camera) - not to find the zoom lens of my dreams!

    But I would never have left Olympus (over 2 years ago now), if they had fulfilled the promise of the E1, and brought out a SMALL, QUIET, weathersealed dSLR.

    It's worth noting in this context, that a quick comparison between the Pentax K5 and the Olympus E1 (which I have beside me) shows that the K5 is slightly smaller, noticeably quieter (yes - that surprised me too), and feels just as solidly built.

    For my own purposes the E5 is a no starter because of it's size (if I'm going to have something that big I may as well use my A900 instead) . But that's just me, and I'm really glad to see that the camera is good, because that Zuiko 12-60 is, without doubt, my alltime favorite zoom.
    Last edited by jonoslack; 15th November 2010 at 08:18. Reason: adding E1/K5 comparison

    Just this guy you know

  37. #37
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,875
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    Quote Originally Posted by t_streng View Post
    yes, depends also which format one uses more. if you crop the 3:2 full frame to 4:3 fromat the difference is much smaller than cropping a 4/3 to 3:2 format.

    Still people say dx is better than 4/3 and ff better than dx, and now we say the new generation 4/3 is as good as ff?
    Sure, FF is better than DX and DX better than 43 - all a matter of physics.

    BUT - when 43 reached a certain level, as they have reached today (or almost today) and now the smaller sensor size in combination with innovative features (almost no AA filter, better processing engine and stellar optics) gets very interesting and can even win against FF depending on your needs.

    Think of the following: back in film days I was already more than happy with ISO800 (I think it was Fuji) which I could occasionally push to ISO1600. Today you can get ISO1600 out of all these Pro DSLRs with much better quality - not to speak about 3200 and 6400. What are we discussing here? Clean ISO 120000 or what? Who really needs that? At least I know I do not.

    So end of the day all these sensors have reached a technical status of High ISO IQ which is sufficient to take also great images at very low light. And if there is NO light then I DO NOT CARE!

    If you fall back to these basics, then yes - there is no significant difference in the sensors.

    The difference is rather in the optics. Which can offer additional speed like in the example of high speed Zuiko zooms.

    Remains what one prefers. In this case I tend to prefer better optics, which are relatively smaller and faster. I think that 43 has kind of reached the necessary maturity level.

    And not to forget - one main feature why it became as good as it is is the almost non existent AA filter. I never understood why CanNikon and other can not get rid of this very bad thing, which seems to be a relict of the very early days of digital photography.
    Last edited by ptomsu; 15th November 2010 at 07:47.

  38. #38
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    And not to forget - one main feature why it became as good as it is is the almost non existent AA filter. I never understood why CanNikon and other can not get rid of this very bad thing, which seems to be a relict of the very early days of digital photography.
    Ah yes - because they don't like people to complain about moire I suppose.

    Just this guy you know

  39. #39
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    high ISO would no so much be my concern. I would be more afraid of DR/highlight tonality.

    Talking lenses: So the zooms from Oly seem to be very good?! What about a prime for Portraits. Is there a good choice?



    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    Sure, FF is better than DX and DX better than 43 - all a matter of physics.

    BUT - when 43 reached a certain level, as they have reached today (or almost today) and now the smaller sensor size in combination with innovative features (almost no AA filter, better processing engine and stellar optics) gets very interesting and can even win against FF depending on your needs.

    Think of the following: back in film days I was already more than happy with ISO800 (I think it was Fuji) which I could occasionally push to ISO1600. Today you can get ISO1600 out of all these Pro DSLRs with much better quality - not to speak about 3200 and 6400. What are we discussing here? Clean ISO 120000 or what? Who really needs that? At least I know I do not.

    So end of the day all these sensors have reached a technical status of High ISO IQ which is sufficient to take also great images at very low light. And if there is NO light then I DO NOT CARE!

    If you fall back to these basics, then yes - there is no significant difference in the sensors.

    The difference is rather in the optics. Which can offer additional speed like in the example of high speed Zuiko zooms.

    Remains what one prefers. In this case I tend to prefer better optics, which are relatively smaller and faster. I think that 43 has kind of reached the necessary maturity level.

    And not to forget - one main feature why it became as good as it is is the almost non existent AA filter. I never understood why CanNikon and other can not get rid of this very bad thing, which seems to be a relict of the very early days of digital photography.

  40. #40
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,933
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    Quote Originally Posted by t_streng View Post
    high ISO would no so much be my concern. I would be more afraid of DR/highlight tonality.

    Talking lenses: So the zooms from Oly seem to be very good?! What about a prime for Portraits. Is there a good choice?
    The E-5 is demonstrating over 11.5 stops of dynamic range @ ISO 200, in my informal testing.

    Olympus' high-grade zooms are on par with most prime lenses for performance. Their super-high-grade zooms exceed most premium prime lenses' performance. Even the Olympus standard-grade lenses are darn good.

    ... I tend to prefer using prime lenses as a matter of shooting style, but the Zuiko Digital 14-35mm f/2 lens puts even the excellent Panasonic/Leica Summilux-D 25mm f/1.4 ASPH (my most-used lens) to the test.

    Depending on what kind of portraiture I'm doing, I use one of either the Summilux-D 25/1.4, the ZD 35mm f/3.5 Macro, the ZD 50mm f/2 Macro or the ZD 50+EC-14 (a 70mm f/2.8 Macro combination) normally. All return exceptional quality photos. The 35mm is one of my favorite choices as I like to work in close often and it provides just the right short-portrait FoV, superb imaging quality, and costs less than $200.

  41. #41
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,875
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Ah yes - because they don't like people to complain about moire I suppose.
    They could do the same which MF vendors do or Leica for example.

    I shot thousands of images with DMR and M8 and never ever had an issue with moire

    But to overcome any possibility that moire appears, they could invest in their processing engines to do same math for eliminating moire

    I think this is almost something like ignorance. I never understood why a D3X has to have this thick AA filter. Or their Canon counterparts.

  42. #42
    Senior Member pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southport, Australia
    Posts
    1,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    I think this is almost something like ignorance. I never understood why a D3X has to have this thick AA filter. Or their Canon counterparts.
    to make the later models look better out of the box (when they reduce the AA filter)?

  43. #43
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    My thoughts running circles...
    Now lets assume 4/3 does have more DOF at same comparable FOV and f-stop than a larger sensor.
    That would mean for same (shallow) shallow DOF I need on f-stop faster lens compared to ff.
    Does this mean that I would need the f2.0 zooms to get the full felexibility regarding DOF and regarding optical quality?
    Or are the f2.8 (-4) lenses as good as lets say the Nikon 24-70?

    If one would use the f2.0 Oly lenses they get every bit as big as a full frame camera with the f2.8 pro Nikon lenses:

    Oly 14-35/2.0 900g Nikon 24-70/2.8 915g

    12-60/2.8-4.0 575g Nikon 24-120/4.0VR 710g

    35-100/2.0 1650g Nikon 70-200/2.8 1470g
    50-200/2.8-3.5 995g 100-300/4.5-5.6VR ca. 80 x 143,5 745

  44. #44
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,875
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    I think that the Oly 2.0 lenses are similar weight as the Nikon 2.8 lenses (zooms) - not discussing 100 - 200g more or less of course.

    I am pretty sure that Oly lenses are equally good (or even better) than their Nikon (or Canon or Sony/Zeiss) counterparts - even if I open a rathole here.

    But where it really comes to play for Oly 43 is the tele range. The Nikon (or Canon) counterparts are for sure much bulkier and heavier. Especially if you go for the Oly 2.8/95-250. Think about that, it replaces a 2.8/200, 2.8/300, 2.8/400 AND 2.8/500 (which I think is not even available for either Nikon or Canon - but I might be wrong). What comes closest is the 4/200-400 from Nikon but this is very limited compared to the Oly lens.

    And I think also the "cheaper" standard zoom is not bad WRT IQ and DOF, but pretty cheap for such a great lens.

    So I think it depends on where you want to go. If wildlife and extreme telephoto is your preferred area of usage then the E5 concept would win in my eyes. If it is more into available light and highest speed primes (1.4) then it is for sure Canon or Nikon. If it comes to highest speed AF and AF flexibility then it is also Nikon or Canon.

    If it is highest resolution - so if you want to use your DSLR also for landscape - then I think it is better to wait for the next Nikon D4X or Canon 1DsMK4 etc, because those will be in the range above 30MP. And then you would not need a separate MFDB system with either 39 or 40MP - I know there are still differences in micro contrast and dynamic range, but they become pretty small actually.

    But if you want a great overall DSLR system with excellent and high speed lenses, then the E5 and some of these Zuiko's are the way to go.

    For me it gets quite clear the longer I think about this, that I might actually switch to the E5 and some high speed zooms. Plus add maybe the 1.4/53 Sigma with 43 mount in order to have a high speed prime.

  45. #45
    Senior Member mathomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,148
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    Very interesting. I never would have considered an Olympus, or a 4/3 camera, until having read this. I bought a Leica M8 partially because I was tired of the bulk of my Canon 30D and associated super-size lenses. I still want an SLR around for certain situations though, so maybe a swap of the Canon equipment for a basic kit as reviewed here makes sense.

    Thanks...

  46. #46
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    Peter-
    I know you are a gearhead and a "switcher" like me.

    While the D700 is the most reliable camera in nearly every aspect (specially AF accurancy where I have been unhappy with various other cameras including the 7d and also the 55), I am not totally happy with the overall look of the images. (Skin tones and micro detail).
    M9 clear keeper, MF a keeper because I dont get enough money if Iwould seel it.

    DSLR for the kids and some sports. So would do I really need and want from my DSLR:
    1) fast and reliable AF
    2) a nice (optical) viewfinder
    3) a good standard zoom, prefered not too big
    4) eventually a wide angle zoom (however if 24mm fov of the standard zoom is good this might be enough)
    5) a good telezoom
    6) a fast 50mm fov lens for low light, prefered f1.4
    7) a fast protrait lens with a 65mm-85mm FOV range, prefered would be f1.4
    8) later a 150/2.0

    In case of E5 this would translate into 12-60, 25/1.4, 45-200, maybe 50 Sima 1.4 for portrait (however I would prefer slightly shorter focal length)

    If I had the chance I would like to compare the IQ between the D700 and the E5 myself and see how it works for my taste.

    Still - more than 12MP would not hurt at all.



    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    I think that the Oly 2.0 lenses are similar weight as the Nikon 2.8 lenses (zooms) - not discussing 100 - 200g more or less of course.

    I am pretty sure that Oly lenses are equally good (or even better) than their Nikon (or Canon or Sony/Zeiss) counterparts - even if I open a rathole here.

    But where it really comes to play for Oly 43 is the tele range. The Nikon (or Canon) counterparts are for sure much bulkier and heavier. Especially if you go for the Oly 2.8/95-250. Think about that, it replaces a 2.8/200, 2.8/300, 2.8/400 AND 2.8/500 (which I think is not even available for either Nikon or Canon - but I might be wrong). What comes closest is the 4/200-400 from Nikon but this is very limited compared to the Oly lens.

    And I think also the "cheaper" standard zoom is not bad WRT IQ and DOF, but pretty cheap for such a great lens.

    So I think it depends on where you want to go. If wildlife and extreme telephoto is your preferred area of usage then the E5 concept would win in my eyes. If it is more into available light and highest speed primes (1.4) then it is for sure Canon or Nikon. If it comes to highest speed AF and AF flexibility then it is also Nikon or Canon.

    If it is highest resolution - so if you want to use your DSLR also for landscape - then I think it is better to wait for the next Nikon D4X or Canon 1DsMK4 etc, because those will be in the range above 30MP. And then you would not need a separate MFDB system with either 39 or 40MP - I know there are still differences in micro contrast and dynamic range, but they become pretty small actually.

    But if you want a great overall DSLR system with excellent and high speed lenses, then the E5 and some of these Zuiko's are the way to go.

    For me it gets quite clear the longer I think about this, that I might actually switch to the E5 and some high speed zooms. Plus add maybe the 1.4/53 Sigma with 43 mount in order to have a high speed prime.

  47. #47
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,875
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    Quote Originally Posted by t_streng View Post
    Peter-
    I know you are a gearhead and a "switcher" like me.

    While the D700 is the most reliable camera in nearly every aspect (specially AF accurancy where I have been unhappy with various other cameras including the 7d and also the 55), I am not totally happy with the overall look of the images. (Skin tones and micro detail).
    M9 clear keeper, MF a keeper because I dont get enough money if Iwould seel it.

    DSLR for the kids and some sports. So would do I really need and want from my DSLR:
    1) fast and reliable AF
    2) a nice (optical) viewfinder
    3) a good standard zoom, prefered not too big
    4) eventually a wide angle zoom (however if 24mm fov of the standard zoom is good this might be enough)
    5) a good telezoom
    6) a fast 50mm fov lens for low light, prefered f1.4
    7) a fast protrait lens with a 65mm-85mm FOV range, prefered would be f1.4
    8) later a 150/2.0

    In case of E5 this would translate into 12-60, 25/1.4, 45-200, maybe 50 Sima 1.4 for portrait (however I would prefer slightly shorter focal length)

    If I had the chance I would like to compare the IQ between the D700 and the E5 myself and see how it works for my taste.

    Still - more than 12MP would not hurt at all.
    Well, yes, I think I am a gearhead. Committing this once, gives you immediately much more freedom talking about gear and switching between different systems

    Anyway, I also would like to do a side by side comparison of D700 and E5. For my purpose I would do it with 2.8/24-70 Nikkor on D700 and 2/14-35 Zuiko on Olympus, that would be perfect. Not sure I can achieve that.

    WRT to fast primes on the E5, I would prefer the 1.4/35 Sigma, I owned the 1.4/25 on my E3 and was absolutely unhappy - maybe it was only my sample, but I also did not like the still very noticeable wide angle character of this lens. So for me it was never kind of a standard lens replacement.

    What I fear is wether Olympus is really committed to 43 or they kind of will abandon and only go M43 in the future. While that is not as bad because of the already good quality of the E5, As you said I would love to have some more MP in the future in a native 43 body and not in a M43 body with adapters.

  48. #48
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    It will be still interesting to see what comes next from Nikon- since this comparison is a 2-3 year old D700 vs a brand new E5.


    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    Well, yes, I think I am a gearhead. Committing this once, gives you immediately much more freedom talking about gear and switching between different systems

    Anyway, I also would like to do a side by side comparison of D700 and E5. For my purpose I would do it with 2.8/24-70 Nikkor on D700 and 2/14-35 Zuiko on Olympus, that would be perfect. Not sure I can achieve that.

    WRT to fast primes on the E5, I would prefer the 1.4/35 Sigma, I owned the 1.4/25 on my E3 and was absolutely unhappy - maybe it was only my sample, but I also did not like the still very noticeable wide angle character of this lens. So for me it was never kind of a standard lens replacement.

    What I fear is wether Olympus is really committed to 43 or they kind of will abandon and only go M43 in the future. While that is not as bad because of the already good quality of the E5, As you said I would love to have some more MP in the future in a native 43 body and not in a M43 body with adapters.

  49. #49
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,875
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    Quote Originally Posted by t_streng View Post
    It will be still interesting to see what comes next from Nikon- since this comparison is a 2-3 year old D700 vs a brand new E5.
    Right, any ideas, rumors?

    I could not find anything substantial so far .....

  50. #50
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E5 vs D700--tests

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    Right, any ideas, rumors?

    I could not find anything substantial so far .....
    no - I have no idea.

    I would wish for more MP, weaker AA-filter (my main wish), and slightly different colors but I doubt this will happen.

    Sorry for being off topic. I will stop here
    Last edited by Paratom; 16th November 2010 at 06:21.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •