I took some pics last night and posted them here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=37038221
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=37038221
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Thanks for sharing the pictures taken with the E-5.I took some pics last night and posted them here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=37038221
I would agree that both systems are pretty close. What you gain in better higher ISO performance with D700 you make up with faster lenses from Oly, which you also need if you want to make up for loss in DOV. Issue is that with the faster Zuiko glass you make also up any weight advantage compared to D700, especially if you compare with E5.I placed the pics here too for easy viewing (only 100kB each, that 20MB total file limit!). All are OOC Jpegs, no post, uncropped (except one-girl between hosts).
Having both D700 and E5 I believe the two systems are fairly close. Oly makes up with glass the Nikkor noise advantage*. Edges out with resolution and OOC picture, especially color. Nikon jpegs are hopeless, and NEFs must be worked on to get close to Oly jpegs. So nice to have fully usable pictures out of camera!And play with them in iPhoto for easy management ("events"), web, mail and print use. Photography as I like it, all picture-taking fun, no computer hassle.
*D700+24/1.4 is still unbeatable for wide shots in the dark.
Copyright FremantleMedia 2010.
So you give the answer yourself - you decide for the lighter and also more versatile lens.I am very happy to have both and use both. D700 with the exceptional 24mm/f1.4 and E5 with the longer uncomparable glass. When I have to choose now for one walkabout, I decide for the zuiko 12-60.
The comparison did not mean any aesthetically superior shots - it was from my side a reportage and everyone having taken images at such a life event knows how that works. Aesthetics is somehow not what you will get in most casesThe D700 will most likely be upgraded to the D3s sensor on the next rev, which is a nice small-increment improvement, unless they fit it with a new sensor enabling video capture. Even there, I don't expect it to be earth-shatteringly different in sensitivity and noise control.
Between the first and second posts image content, it's a toss up to me. Neither stand out to my eye as technically or aesthetically superior. With cameras and lenses of this calibre, how a photographer uses them is more important than the miniscule differences in capabilities.
Every system has strengths and weaknesses ... Olympus, Nikon, Pentax, Canon, Sony ... so if you like one of them and its strengths align with the work you do, life is good. None are "best".
For me, the Olympus E-5 with the lenses in my kit is the sweet spot. Having worked with Pentax for several years, I'm very familiar with the lenses they offer ... and I prefer what I have now, overall.
"3 years older" sensors with 4x the photosite area are not comparable "on par". The E-5 is by this measure actually outperforming the D700 by a factor of 2-4x on noise control.... Anyway I wanted to show that already 3 year old technology is performing well on par (if not better - and colors are subjective !!!!) with today's state of the art. ...
Never? I would be careful using that word about electronics. Although larger sensors will always have an advantage, it's a question how much is useful for most photographers.So think about a FF sensor like that in the D800 (or whatever name it will carry) - maybe offering 24MP or even higher. This is an area where unfortunately 43 (and M43) will never be able to play.
This is a valid argument as long as DOF or lack of light are important factors, but given a situation where you have enough light and don't need hair thin DOF, a 70-300 on a 43/m43 camera will be very much lighter than anything that spells sixhundredmillimeters on a full frame camera. For somebody who runs around tropical golf courses with two camera bodies and long lenses on a regular basis, that means a lot.COming back to one of the most important facts why all these discussions started - weight: It is obvious that with top Zuiko glass on an E5 you get similar IQ as with a D700 with top level glass. But the weight and size will then be not really different. At least not so different that it is worth to discuss in the one or the other way.
For me the quality is already good enough -both D700 and E5. What comes now - at least for me - are improvements which I will take but would not really need."3 years older" sensors with 4x the photosite area are not comparable "on par". The E-5 is by this measure actually outperforming the D700 by a factor of 2-4x on noise control.
Nikon will produce new, better equipment. So will Olympus. So will everyone else. When is it good enough? When do you get off the "gotta buy new equipment" bandwagon because you're after some infinitely elusive micro-advantage?
My E-1 is my oldest digital camera, dating from 2003. It still produces superb results and photos made with it continue to win recognition and satisfy clients. I like it, it is a wonderful camera to shoot with even though lethargic at writing files by today's standards. Who the heck cares if it makes great photographs?
Well, m43 is a totally different area than 43. And I fully agree with what you say about m43. This is the reason why I am still in m43 but went out of 43 some years ago.Never? I would be careful using that word about electronics. Although larger sensors will always have an advantage, it's a question how much is useful for most photographers.
Somewhat unrelated, but just to show how fast and how much things change: In 1987, an IBM 3380, 2 meters tall and a couple of hundred kilograms, the first commercially available 1GB HDD (1.26GB to be exact), was priced at $70,000 (it was actually launched a few years earlier, in 1981, for a higher price). Today, 23 short years later, the price of a 2TB HDD is around $100. That's 1,600x the capacity for 1/700 of the price and at around 1/500 of the weight and size. Although optics complicates things, I don't doubt for a second that 10-15 years from now, we'll see sensors much smaller than those in 4/3 cameras that can shoot clean enough photos at ISOs that are high enough only to have theoretical interest. The challenge will be the lenses, but seeing what they are doing with optical corrections in in software nowadays, I don't doubt for a second that those challenges will be resolved as well. Just look at the tiny, and very good, lenses made for m43.
This is a valid argument as long as DOF or lack of light are important factors, but given a situation where you have enough light and don't need hair thin DOF, a 70-300 on a 43/m43 camera will be very much lighter than anything that spells sixhundredmillimeters on a full frame camera. For somebody who runs around tropical golf courses with two camera bodies and long lenses on a regular basis, that means a lot.
Hmmm, I don't know, I too have D700 with 70-200 VRII and it is my impression results from it can be much better than that.Just for comparison - Nikon D700 with 70-200 VRII - all at ISO 6400