Site Sponsors
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 249

Thread: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

  1. #51
    Senior Member Ario Arioldi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Milano, Italy
    Posts
    784
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    This is exactly my dilemma, I know what would be the best (cheapest) way for me - a D7000, but the E5 still keeps me interested so much ......

    My biggest concern and why I am still hesitating to get into the E system again is, because I am not sure about the future of the E system, despite several messages from Olympus that hey will continue this. I somehow lost this trust.

    Maybe best for me would be to wait for the D800 or however this thing will be called and simply stay with Nikon
    In this recent (today) press release announcing Zeiss co-operation with the m4/3, Olympus seems to declare also the intention to continue to develop both standards:

    "As the originator of the Four Thirds System and Micro Four Thirds System standards, Olympus Imaging Corp. will continue to develop and enhance the product lineup for both standards to meet the diverse needs of our customers."

  2. #52
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,872
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    The simplest way is always to go with Canikon, and nobody can say that they make bad cameras or lenses. But with regards to future support, they have the history against them. Canon threw everything overboard when they changed to the EF-mount in the late eighties. It was a logical move, but not popular, and they did little or nothing to make solutions that made the old lenses workable in the new mount.

    Nikon has had a more gradual approach. Pre 1977 lenses can't be mounted on any current Nikon camera without being modified, AI/AIS lenses won't meter on lower end cameras and AF lenses won't AF on the entry-level cameras.

    But Olympus supports the 50mm f/1.8 that came with my OM-1 in 1974. The make an adapter for 4/3 and they make an adapter for m4/3. They also make an adapter for using 4/3 lenses on m4/3. And when there was controversy around IS on the E-510, which didn't support legacy lenses, they modified the firmware to make that happen.

    With all this in mind, I think we can be relatively sure that, unless the company culture of Olympus changes radically, they will do everything they can to support owners of the original 4/3 system. It may shrink, but it will still be there, the same way as the OM system existed long after it should normally have been discontinued.

    Edit:
    What will also be interesting to see, is what happens when Nikon enters the world of EVIL. They have already patented a new, fully electronic lens mount. The big question will be what Nikon lenses can be used with an adapter on the new mount, and what functionality will be included. With Olympus, we already know.
    Jorgen,

    I agree to all of that! But the reality (at least my reality) is very different from all of this. Mainly because I am not a LOYAL camera brand user. And I switched several times between Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Leica, Minolta (Sony) and finally always sold all my existing glass of one brand and went into another brand. So I could not care less about how old the lenses can be to be used via adapters or other things.

    Anyway I am concerned about the E system, as I do not see a strong official statement from Olympus about what they really intend - no details but an official statement at least.

    So if I would go now the E system way with the E5 and 7-14, 14-35 and 35-100 and maybe even 150, I would really love to understand first that this system will be supported seriously. Means that a future Pro E camera would be of a similar build and size as the E5, so I could also hold and handle the pretty big and heavy pro grade lenses as comfortable as with the E5. Plus support also higher resolution - I am still confident, that a 43 sensor could have around 18MP and still not outperform a Pro grade Zuiko lens. And it maybe could even go higher. So such a statement I would like to see. Not sure if that will come out, but would be preferred!

  3. #53
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,872
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ario Arioldi View Post
    In this recent (today) press release announcing Zeiss co-operation with the m4/3, Olympus seems to declare also the intention to continue to develop both standards:

    "As the originator of the Four Thirds System and Micro Four Thirds System standards, Olympus Imaging Corp. will continue to develop and enhance the product lineup for both standards to meet the diverse needs of our customers."
    This is definitely interesting - would you have a pointer to this link?

    Thanks

    Peter

  4. #54
    Senior Member Ario Arioldi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Milano, Italy
    Posts
    784
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.


  5. #55
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,346
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ario Arioldi View Post
    I say WOW... they're on the right track, and so are we, right? That is very encouraging for the m4/3 system. Apart from Leica M, no other system has support from quality lens manufacturers that comes even close to this. Zuiko, Leica, Voigtlander and now Zeiss.

  6. #56
    Senior Member Ario Arioldi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Milano, Italy
    Posts
    784
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    I say WOW... they're on the right track, and so are we, right? That is very encouraging for the m4/3 system. Apart from Leica M, no other system has support from quality lens manufacturers that comes even close to this. Zuiko, Leica, Voigtlander and now Zeiss.
    Don't forget Schneider.

  7. #57
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,931
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Yes indeed: Announcements from both Schneider and Zeiss joining the mFT group, excellent stuff.

    Whether the E-5 is "better" or "worse" than anything else is no longer relevant to me. It has proven to be a most satisfying camera purchase, produces results that I'm delighted with, and I love working with it. My lens kit is as complete as Magpie Syndrome will allow, and they're all great lenses.

    :-)

  8. #58
    Senior Member Ario Arioldi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Milano, Italy
    Posts
    784
    Post Thanks / Like

    Smile Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    Yes indeed: Announcements from both Schneider and Zeiss joining the mFT group, excellent stuff.

    Whether the E-5 is "better" or "worse" than anything else is no longer relevant to me. It has proven to be a most satisfying camera purchase, produces results that I'm delighted with, and I love working with it. My lens kit is as complete as Magpie Syndrome will allow, and they're all great lenses.

    :-)
    +1

  9. #59
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,872
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Ok, so this is really promising - Schneider and Zeiss on board!

    I only can reiterate that despite all the concerns about the E5 in different reviews I am really intrigued by this camera. I need another week of thinking through this, but my intent is to switch back to the E system and sell my Nikon gear

    Please tell me that I am not completely crazy

  10. #60
    Senior Member Ario Arioldi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Milano, Italy
    Posts
    784
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    Ok, so this is really promising - Schneider and Zeiss on board!

    I only can reiterate that despite all the concerns about the E5 in different reviews I am really intrigued by this camera. I need another week of thinking through this, but my intent is to switch back to the E system and sell my Nikon gear

    Please tell me that I am not completely crazy
    If I can share my personal experience I have both Nikon (D 700) and Oly (E5 now as a replacement of E3). I use both systems for their respective merits but if I have to choose only one between the two, my preference is for Oly.
    Cheers,
    Ario

  11. #61
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Essex UK
    Posts
    71
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    It's funny how Oly grabs you. I have been to Oly and back twice, I now have full frame D700, APS D90 M 4/3 G1 and EPL1.

    But it's Olympus I have a real passion for, if I were convinced about there support for the system in the future I would certainly consider again, but I am just a little nervous at present




    Quote Originally Posted by Ario Arioldi View Post
    If I can share my personal experience I have both Nikon (D 700) and Oly (E5 now as a replacement of E3). I use both systems for their respective merits but if I have to choose only one between the two, my preference is for Oly.
    Cheers,
    Ario

  12. #62
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    280
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    34

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    It's been a pleasure to read this thread. Everyone here is so much more grounded then other photography forums. I've been very intrigued with the E5 and I'm glad many posters here feel the same. Since I have some investment in 4/3s lenses I really don't want to switch. The D700 is just larger and heavier than I'd like with Nikon's high end lenses. Not to mention the prices of their new primes.

    Still, I'm thinking of selling my E-30 to a friend and sticking to my OM4Ti and film this year and look at a E-5 when the prices come down a bit. For those that do pick up an E-5 I'm looking forward to reading your thoughts.
    Charles - flickr

  13. #63
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,872
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by deckitout View Post
    It's funny how Oly grabs you. I have been to Oly and back twice, I now have full frame D700, APS D90 M 4/3 G1 and EPL1.

    But it's Olympus I have a real passion for, if I were convinced about there support for the system in the future I would certainly consider again, but I am just a little nervous at present
    You know, I am in the same situation. I used to trust Oly several times, starting back in the film days with an OM2, later OM4 and then saw the complete system disappear because of no longer support from Oly. I bought the E1 and some glass, was very happy, but just needed some more MP. I bought the E3 trusting them blindly and was just disappointed because my AF did not work as well as overall support was just bad. Sold the complete system and went back into Nikon.

    Was not happy with Nikon either but at least the camera worked as specified. Tried Sony, not really what I wanted, although many here are happy with Alpha. Went back to a D700 again, good camera, good lenses, but .... what really rocks me is the E5 and the 2.0 zooms. This is just a different way to photograph for me. The longer I think about it the more I come to the conclusion I should try Oly again. And hopefully stay

  14. #64
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,872
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by cjlacz View Post
    It's been a pleasure to read this thread. Everyone here is so much more grounded then other photography forums. I've been very intrigued with the E5 and I'm glad many posters here feel the same. Since I have some investment in 4/3s lenses I really don't want to switch. The D700 is just larger and heavier than I'd like with Nikon's high end lenses. Not to mention the prices of their new primes.

    Still, I'm thinking of selling my E-30 to a friend and sticking to my OM4Ti and film this year and look at a E-5 when the prices come down a bit. For those that do pick up an E-5 I'm looking forward to reading your thoughts.
    I had the D700 and the E5 side by side last weekend and they are pretty much same size and weight. So there are not much differences.

    But today I tried looking at the results from last weekend in C1Pro - all E5 shot in RAW. The results are just stunning, especially with that processing SW. Absolutely stunning! Cannot say more!

  15. #65
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    280
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    34

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    I had the D700 and the E5 side by side last weekend and they are pretty much same size and weight. So there are not much differences.

    But today I tried looking at the results from last weekend in C1Pro - all E5 shot in RAW. The results are just stunning, especially with that processing SW. Absolutely stunning! Cannot say more!
    Agreed, the E5 is larger than I want, but looking at the system as a whole they have options to keeping the weight/bulk down than Nikon. Oly has the very nice HG lenses that Nikon doesn't seem to make. The other nice thing about Oly is I can use the lenses on a E-620 or m4/3s camera and still get the same angle of view. Not sure I'd want to after trying the E-5, but the option is there. That's not really possible with the D700.
    Charles - flickr

  16. #66
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    90
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    As sensors improve, roughly twice as good every three years say, given the lesser amount invested than in the cpu business, the arguments will become clearer: m4/3 is adequate and will be cheaper than the FF and APS-c options.

    Higher quality will always be available with Med Format digital backs. Their price will fall, of course. Investing therefore, suggests that FF lenses are likely to be less attractive than the 4/3 and m4/3 equivalent. The smaller format offers size and cost advantages. The quality issue will be irrelevant. Usability will converge also.

    In the meantime, users have their current investments made and are used to certain systems. Hence the closely and cogently argued positions on this thread, reflecting a very seasoned and balanced range of views.

    The great winner is the new user who can adopt the system with the most potential: m4/3. The old 6x6cm debates are being rehearsed and for mobile photography, it seems history is again rhyming: the smaller 110 format, has finally come of age!

    For those who disagree, I wish you great photography, but as you get older and as tremors increase, you too will come to appreciate the smaller format! Technology is making the proper outcome of these debates increasingly clear!

  17. #67
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,118
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ario Arioldi View Post
    In this recent (today) press release announcing Zeiss co-operation with the m4/3, Olympus seems to declare also the intention to continue to develop both standards:

    "As the originator of the Four Thirds System and Micro Four Thirds System standards, Olympus Imaging Corp. will continue to develop and enhance the product lineup for both standards to meet the diverse needs of our customers."
    Olympus has said this before with joint press releases with Panasonic. Yet in direct interviews with Olympus officials like Terada and the Europe Manager they have mentioned the future is Pen.

    The main thing is they support 4/3rd lenses in a Pen world, which they have also mentioned. With that, a good pro spec pen handling 4/3rd lenses well is all that is required to carry the torch while no more 4/3rd systems come out.

    - Raist

  18. #68
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,118
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pat Donnelly View Post
    As sensors improve, roughly twice as good every three years say, given the lesser amount invested than in the cpu business, the arguments will become clearer: m4/3 is adequate and will be cheaper than the FF and APS-c options.
    That was one of the arguments with 4/3rds. Was.

    - Raist

  19. #69
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,118
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    @Jorgen Udvang

    A few things to keep in mind in your comparisons with the E-5-

    If you want nice detail, lower megabyte files and you are a low iso shooter the E-5 is definitively a compelling alternative for your needs. I am not sure if this is all I need but from the way you talk, I humbly suggest you consider in your D7000/K-5 comparisons-

    - the dynamic range- is this important to you? The sony sensored cameras do much better here
    - high iso performance - I don't know if you used something like LightRoom to convert the D7000 files but I have the suspicion using a good raw converter would get rid of most color issues. I really think there's more than just a mere stop different in ISO. As for the in-body IS, remember that won't stop moving subjects.
    - shadows and banding- do you often post process recovering from shadows in a high contrast scene? Where you exposed for highlights? The E-5 runs out of shadow DR rather fast and does show some banding if you bring some of those shadows up/shoot at high ISO's.

    Now, what I just mentioned may be completely irrelevant to your photography, in which case, skip n' ignore. It won't matter to you. If some of that matters to you, put some weight to the things you care about (suggestion) and compare keeping that in mind.

    Doesn't hurt to try and check the E-5 along with the D7000 in the same photographic situation. Also as far as fast lenses go, the E-5 has only two F1.4 choices (one Panasonic- no longer made, and another Sigma- probably no longer made either).

    - Raist

  20. #70
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    280
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    34

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d View Post
    That was one of the arguments with 4/3rds. Was.

    - Raist
    It still is an argument for 4/3s. Just because they came out with m4/3s doesn't mean 4/3s won't see the same improvements from the save investment.

    Olympus may see the future as the Pen, and I think they are right. It's a more modern system than just putting a digital sensor in a SLR body. I'm not expecting that 4/3s disappears that quickly though. There are probably technical issues that will prevent 4/3s lenses from performing as quickly with CDAF as PDAF. It's going to take a while to convert people from OVFs to EVFs. I think we'll see the system live on for a while.

    One of the biggests costs of bringing new products to market is all the time spent polishing it to get it ready for release. If you consider one pro level camera every 3 years or so with a lot of the R&D being shared with m4/3s I imagine they can do a good job recouping their costs. I don't have any special knowledge of Olympus, just some time spent working in technology companies. Apple is a good example of how a minimal product line and parts reuse can reduce costs.
    Charles - flickr

  21. #71
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

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

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by bcf View Post
    I find it troubling that for the Martini logo, the E-5 seems to be sharper, but is not in the rest of the photo (I think). The difference is particularly striking for the paper clips - is the plane of focus different?


    this is a different discussion but I have to say that I find the dpreview image quality comparisons to be read very carefull.
    The very slightest focus difference will give a wrong interpretation. Then there are many lenses with many f-stops with many distances in many different light.
    Here we see one lens one fstop one distance with limited contrast and mostly artificial subjects.
    And then there are different raw converters which might work different for different sensors.
    I look at the dpreviews but frankly the image comparisons I dont take really serious as an indicator for real life photography.

  22. #72
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,872
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by cjlacz View Post
    It still is an argument for 4/3s. Just because they came out with m4/3s doesn't mean 4/3s won't see the same improvements from the save investment.

    Olympus may see the future as the Pen, and I think they are right. It's a more modern system than just putting a digital sensor in a SLR body. I'm not expecting that 4/3s disappears that quickly though. There are probably technical issues that will prevent 4/3s lenses from performing as quickly with CDAF as PDAF. It's going to take a while to convert people from OVFs to EVFs. I think we'll see the system live on for a while.

    One of the biggests costs of bringing new products to market is all the time spent polishing it to get it ready for release. If you consider one pro level camera every 3 years or so with a lot of the R&D being shared with m4/3s I imagine they can do a good job recouping their costs. I don't have any special knowledge of Olympus, just some time spent working in technology companies. Apple is a good example of how a minimal product line and parts reuse can reduce costs.
    Talked to an Olympus representative lately and he told me that the Pro level 43 camera (E5 and future models) will be continued. So there should be a E7 (or however this one will be called, most likely with OVF. I understood that the rest of the 43 cameras would go away and instead as a consumer line M43 will be the future.

    Which makes perfect sense to me, as they will need a Pro level top DSLR for the Pro grade 43 lenses! It makes not much sense IMHO to mount a big and heavy 35-100 or 2/150 or 2.8/300 on a M43 body, even a Pro one, as simply the handling of the complete unit would then be sub optimal.

    So my expectations are highly towards a E5 successor in the same size as the E5. But please with at least a sensor as we have it today in the GH2. There are also rumors that Olympus is now allowed again to use other vendor's sensors for future products than just Panasonic. So maybe we will see one of the latest Kodak sensors in a future 43 or M43 Pro body. Which should not only bring significant resolution increase, but also better DR and higher ISO support because of the new technology.

  23. #73
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    According to those more knowledgable than myself, the problem with m4/3 and 4/3 sensors right now isn't tied to size as much as most believe. The IQ advantage that Sony APS-C sensors have right now over m4/3 is based on the sensor tech itself, where Panasonic (similar to Samsung APS-C) just isn't building a sensor that competes with Sony on the pixel level. If Panasonic built an APS-C sensor, or Sony built a m4/3 sensor, the gap would still be there, albeit a bit less.

    Sensor size is important, but there are a lot of pieces to the puzzle.

  24. #74
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,931
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Far as I'm concerned, there isn't any "problem" with FourThirds sensors. Even the oldest FourThirds camera, the Olympus E-1, produces stunning photographs. The E-5 does even better.

    I know it's not popular to say this around here, but if more folks spent more time making photographs and less time worrying about what equipment they were going to buy, the conversation here would be much more interesting.

  25. #75
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    178
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by douglasf13 View Post
    or Sony built a m4/3 sensor
    it is built already - just crop its area to 43rd size in your raw converter or during postprocessing

  26. #76
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    178
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    It makes not much sense IMHO to mount a big and heavy 35-100 or 2/150 or 2.8/300 on a M43 body, even a Pro one, as simply the handling of the complete unit would then be sub optimal.
    how do you know that it will be suboptimal if that body does not exist ? the mere fact that m43 has shorter flange distance does not mean that it is impossible to build the body like E5 gripwise, it might be thinner around the mount (if we still want to mount m43 lenses), but the grip still will be the same as 2 other dimensions (L x H)... and if you are concerned about the lack of weight - they will put some extra pig iron inside

  27. #77
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,872
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by deejjjaaaa View Post
    how do you know that it will be suboptimal if that body does not exist ? the mere fact that m43 has shorter flange distance does not mean that it is impossible to build the body like E5 gripwise, it might be thinner around the mount (if we still want to mount m43 lenses), but the grip still will be the same as 2 other dimensions (L x H)... and if you are concerned about the lack of weight - they will put some extra pig iron inside
    Well, let me put it that way - I just don't see it come!

  28. #78
    Senior Member Tesselator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Japan
    Posts
    695
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    douglasf13,
    Yup, I tend to agree. The panasonic/oly sensors just aren't as good. The difference my be considered slight for the extreme generalists but for the more discerning and quality concerned the differences are fairy large.

    But I just want to chime in on the balance and handling issue. None of the current M43 cameras handle well. They all are clumsy and poorly laid out. It's not too much of an issue with an ultralight pancake lens on but if you add even the 7-14 not to mention the 14-140 or 100-300 the whole system balance falls apart. And all the clumsiness of the layout becomes entirely too obvious. Some may choose to shoot with meticulous and methodical finger placement, just plain deny it, or not have the relative experience to know the differences but most people I read seem to agree. Oly seems to fair a little better than Panny but it's about the same thing. So, considering this, mounting "a big and heavy" whatever lens on a M4/3 body can't be and isn't any worse. I do it often and find I have to do the same operational workarounds and make the same handling sacrifices as I do with the m43 lenses that were built for the camera.

    I like my m43's don't misunderstand... But I'm aware of and willing to acknowledge it's shortcomings too.

    BTW, this topic is directly related IMO to "taking good photographs". Handling and operation is a very big part of the photographic creative process. Informing ourselves can only lead to improvements - either in the way we do things ourselves or in what the camera companies come up with in the next round(s) of releases.

  29. #79
    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: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by douglasf13 View Post
    According to those more knowledgable than myself, the problem with m4/3 and 4/3 sensors right now isn't tied to size as much as most believe. The IQ advantage that Sony APS-C sensors have right now over m4/3 is based on the sensor tech itself, where Panasonic (similar to Samsung APS-C) just isn't building a sensor that competes with Sony on the pixel level. If Panasonic built an APS-C sensor, or Sony built a m4/3 sensor, the gap would still be there, albeit a bit less.

    Sensor size is important, but there are a lot of pieces to the puzzle.
    Hi Douglas
    I completely agree with this - the difference in sensor size really isn't such a big deal . . . the difference I see is that Sony are making much much better sensors than Panasonic. That, and the fact that Olympus seem to be simply refusing to make the compact professional quality body that the E1 suggested is the only thing that keeps me out of 4/3 at the moment; the lenses are always the lure back on board.

    Actually, if Panasonic built an APS-c sensor and Sony a 4/3 sensor I'm willing to bet that the Sony 4/3 would still show real advantages over the panasonic APS/c

    The 4/3 sensor is 13.5mm high, the APS c is 16.7mm this really isn't so much!

    Just this guy you know

  30. #80
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,872
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Hi Douglas
    I completely agree with this - the difference in sensor size really isn't such a big deal . . . the difference I see is that Sony are making much much better sensors than Panasonic. That, and the fact that Olympus seem to be simply refusing to make the compact professional quality body that the E1 suggested is the only thing that keeps me out of 4/3 at the moment; the lenses are always the lure back on board.

    Actually, if Panasonic built an APS-c sensor and Sony a 4/3 sensor I'm willing to bet that the Sony 4/3 would still show real advantages over the panasonic APS/c

    The 4/3 sensor is 13.5mm high, the APS c is 16.7mm this really isn't so much!
    Main issue is, that the sensor in the E5 is only the already aged 12MP version. If it would be the latest 18MP version of the GH2 results would be MUCH better, as I can tell from the results of the GH2. I cannot say if better than the latest APSC Sony sensors, but pretty much the same till 6400.

    Actually I think all this ISO peeping is same as pixel peeping, who really needs it? look at the M9, its max. sensitivity is ISO2500 and it delivers better results than a Nikon D3S or D3X just because of the lacking AA filter and the reason that if higher ISO levels are not available people start thinking how else they can get great results in available light - also called creativity!

    While I had the E5 for testing I also compared it at same moderate ISO level to the D700, which actually one would call an unfair comparison, just because of the differences in sensor size. But actually I liked the results from the E5 more up till ISO1600, much more natural compared to the very "plastic" look of the D700, already in the range of ISO1600. Of course the E5 is more grainy, but actually I found I prefer the more grainy look compared to the more clinical plastic look of the D700. And the Zuiko Pro grade lenses are definitely superior to the Nikkor counterparts.

    Then at ISO 3200 and 6400 the D700 wins in most situations, but this is for the price of an even more "plastic" look. I agree that in some cases the ISO6400 results from the E5 are not even useable anymore, but end of the day in most situations when using the Zuiko high speed zooms (2.0) and limit below ISO 3200 I like the Oly results much more.

    Had Olympus only used the new GH2 sensor in their E5, this camera would have been the absolute killer DSLR and no discussions necessary

  31. #81
    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: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    Actually I think all this ISO peeping is same as pixel peeping, who really needs it? look at the M9, its max. sensitivity is ISO2500 and it delivers better results than a Nikon D3S or D3X just because of the lacking AA filter and the reason that if higher ISO levels are not available people start thinking how else they can get great results in available light - also called creativity!
    Try telling that to someone who has to shoot a wedding in the failing light and doesn't want to use flash.

    Try telling it to any PJ photographer who needs to get the shot in dismal lighting.

    I completely agree that it isn't the be-all and end-all, but if you ever need to shoot in poor light.

    You could also say that the fact that the E5 is so big is just size peeping (and of course, some people, absolutely reasonably, like it that way). These things don't matter to everyone, but they do matter to some people.

    Just this guy you know

  32. #82
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,872
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Try telling that to someone who has to shoot a wedding in the failing light and doesn't want to use flash.

    Try telling it to any PJ photographer who needs to get the shot in dismal lighting.

    I completely agree that it isn't the be-all and end-all, but if you ever need to shoot in poor light.

    You could also say that the fact that the E5 is so big is just size peeping (and of course, some people, absolutely reasonably, like it that way). These things don't matter to everyone, but they do matter to some people.
    How did you shoot weddings, PJ, etc. before sensors with today's sensitivity were available?

    How do you shoot your M9 ????? I even succeeded with my old M8 getting excellent results with ISO 1250 and the great M lenses.

    Why should that not be possible with the E5 and a 2/14-35 or 2/35-100 ????

    I meanwhile think that all this available light / no light stuff today is nothing else than a hype. I know how it feels to shoot a D700 with auto ISO set to 6400 as upper limit and having a 2.8/70-200 VR2 on the camera and shooting it wide open. Great, for sure! But with some creativity and some thinking I could have got all these shots at ceremonies in dark churches also with the E5 and a 2/35-100 at maximum ISO 1600, or even ISO800.

    I am not saying that higher good ISO performance does not help. But staying lower is an option, especially when combined with effective IS and high speed glass. But what you get in turn is much better detail. I was surprised when I studied my D700 files at ISO3200 and 6400 and found how much the SW (camera) takes details away. And I am talking only about RAW.

    But there is hope that Olympus is relieved from using Panasonic sensors as the contract expires and then they hopefully might get into Sony or Kodak or even Foveon.

    Do you not have the desire to see these times come? I do!

  33. #83
    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: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    HI Peter
    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    How did you shoot weddings, PJ, etc. before sensors with today's sensitivity were available?
    LOL - Yes - I also shot weddings with film, but I don't want to go back there again!

    still, your points are reasonable
    Of course, I do shoot the M9 at weddings - because it has other characteristics which I value, but I don't shoot a wedding with one camera.

    You mustn't get me wrong - I think the E5 is splendid, I just wish it was smaller, and that it had a better sensor - really, that's it.


    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    But there is hope that Olympus is relieved from using Panasonic sensors as the contract expires and then they hopefully might get into Sony or Kodak or even Foveon.

    Do you not have the desire to see these times come? I do!
    Don't really mind if Panasonic makes it, as long as it's good!

    all the best

    Just this guy you know

  34. #84
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    178
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    But actually I liked the results from the E5 more up till ISO1600, much more natural compared to the very "plastic" look of the D700, already in the range of ISO1600. Of course the E5 is more grainy, but actually I found I prefer the more grainy look compared to the more clinical plastic look of the D700.
    that just says you did the wrong raw conversion/postprocessing... unless you are comparing in camera .JPGs where you options are much more limited.

  35. #85
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    178
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    Well, let me put it that way - I just don't see it come!
    of course that is another story... if you have a big body you might as well live w/ APS-C or FF sensor and no matter how excellent Zuiko 2.0 zooms are they failed to bring the market share to Olympus... somehow even the marketshare of professional photographers for whom the cost of such lenses are just a small expense in the whole picture... even in the times when the technological gap between 43 sensors and APS-C/FF was smaller.... which says that even if you will put a Sony tech in 43 body to reduce the gap to the just a less than a stop based on the sheer size - nobody will come...

  36. #86
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,872
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by deejjjaaaa View Post
    that just says you did the wrong raw conversion/postprocessing... unless you are comparing in camera .JPGs where you options are much more limited.
    LOL - wrong RAW conversion?

    I did it with LR3.3 and C1 Pro (I think I know what I am doing) and both show similar results, although C1Pro really rocks with the E5 files!

    I never ever use camera JPEGs ......

    Just try yourself, you will be overwhelmed by the fine details from the E5 - given that you use the right lenses though .....

  37. #87
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,872
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by deejjjaaaa View Post
    of course that is another story... if you have a big body you might as well live w/ APS-C or FF sensor and no matter how excellent Zuiko 2.0 zooms are they failed to bring the market share to Olympus... somehow even the marketshare of professional photographers for whom the cost of such lenses are just a small expense in the whole picture... even in the times when the technological gap between 43 sensors and APS-C/FF was smaller.... which says that even if you will put a Sony tech in 43 body to reduce the gap to the just a less than a stop based on the sheer size - nobody will come...
    You may be right that not many will come.

    Anyway once you tried the E5 and did real comparisons it is hard to turn around and just leave it alone

  38. #88
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    Far as I'm concerned, there isn't any "problem" with FourThirds sensors. Even the oldest FourThirds camera, the Olympus E-1, produces stunning photographs. The E-5 does even better.

    I know it's not popular to say this around here, but if more folks spent more time making photographs and less time worrying about what equipment they were going to buy, the conversation here would be much more interesting.
    I would certainly agree that just about any digital camera is capable of great images. However, this is a tech thread in a gear forum, so I'd say that this is the place to talk about the nuance, no?

  39. #89
    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: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by douglasf13 View Post
    I would certainly agree that just about any digital camera is capable of great images. However, this is a tech thread in a gear forum, so I'd say that this is the place to talk about the nuance, no?
    I'd have to agree with you there Douglas, and taking photographs as well as joining in with technical discussions is not precluded!

    Just this guy you know

  40. #90
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Agreed there! I broke my right hand in November, and taking time off from shooting stinks. I wished that all of my lenses weren't manual focus! lol. It did give me a chance to make a lot of prints for friends in my downtime, though.

  41. #91
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,118
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    [QUOTE=ptomsu;289239]How did you shoot weddings, PJ, etc. before sensors with today's sensitivity were available?

    How do you shoot your M9 ????? I even succeeded with my old M8 getting excellent results with ISO 1250 and the great M lenses.

    Why should that not be possible with the E5 and a 2/14-35 or 2/35-100 ????

    I meanwhile think that all this available light / no light stuff today is nothing else than a hype.
    [quote]

    I think you should speak for yourself and your needs. I have shot for over 2 years steet night life in Hollywood Boulevard with an Olympus e-300/e-330/e-420/E-3 and I can say that having higher doable ISO would have made my life far easier. As for the 2/14-35 an 2/35-100-> the 14-35 has an autofocus issue in low light that it's still happening with the E-5. Basically it locks onto focus then begins a dance of micro steps taking forever to focus.

    Now, on the logic of that, you have to consider that then you are making the system big and heavy with those lenses (not to mention very expensive)- and as good as those lenses are (I know they are very good, have seen the output from the 14-35 myself), the system becomes as a whole so expensive that it invites considering other options (E-5 + 14-35 alone is about $3,900 USD).

    In the end what new advancements buy more than anything is convenience, and if that convenience comes around with a particular brand and model, I say it's worth considering if you have the option, and if it will make your life easier - even if with the other it is possible, but not very easy.

    - Raist

  42. #92
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,346
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    I've been away for a few days, so I haven't followed the discussion. I've had the chance to do some testing though, and thought things a bit through. What I end up with is the fact that this is very much based on individual needs. Here's a little story from last Saturday, a day that in many ways was typical for my needs:

    Around five in the morning, I started out with a Cambodian friend of mine on his little 100cc motorbike, to travel 40 kilometers on dirt roads in rural Cambodia to reach some ancient temple ruins in the middle of nowhere. At six o clock, we passed a temple that was beautifully decorated due to some ceremony that I've forgotten to ask about. We stopped so that I could take some photos. Since this was before sunrise, there was hardly any light, and the interior of the temple was hardly lit at all.

    But even then, using the 7-14mm at f/4 and ISO800 for the exterior shot and ISO1600 inside, I got what I wanted. With the E-5 and Zuiko 11-22mm f/2.8-3.5, I would have gained one stop from the wider aperture and another from the IS. I wouldn't be able to go as wide, but I can live with that. Usually, I don't need more than this. I did do a job some ten days ago with a D700 at ISO 1600 and 3200, but boy, did I have to work to get those colours right. The two photos below are jpegs out of the camera with a slight adjustment of colour balance and brightness for the interior shot.

    Here are the shots, both hand held:

    GH1 with Pana 7-14 @ 7mm, f/4.0, 1/25s and ISO1600



    GH1 with Pana 7-14 @ 9mm, f/4.0, 1/20s and ISO800



    As long as I'm not going to print very large, 4/3 and m4/3 does it fine for me. With poster-size enlargements, the Files from recent Nikon cameras, including those from the D7000, are much more robust, and show less noise, even at low ISO. I will probably stay with both camera systems, but I believe I will use the Olympus and Panasonic cameras much more. I'm undecided with regards to the E-5 still, and will spend some more time taking photos. That's what they are for anyway, these cameras

  43. #93
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,872
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    [QUOTE=raist3d;289463][QUOTE=ptomsu;289239]How did you shoot weddings, PJ, etc. before sensors with today's sensitivity were available?

    How do you shoot your M9 ????? I even succeeded with my old M8 getting excellent results with ISO 1250 and the great M lenses.

    Why should that not be possible with the E5 and a 2/14-35 or 2/35-100 ????

    I meanwhile think that all this available light / no light stuff today is nothing else than a hype.

    I think you should speak for yourself and your needs. I have shot for over 2 years steet night life in Hollywood Boulevard with an Olympus e-300/e-330/e-420/E-3 and I can say that having higher doable ISO would have made my life far easier. As for the 2/14-35 an 2/35-100-> the 14-35 has an autofocus issue in low light that it's still happening with the E-5. Basically it locks onto focus then begins a dance of micro steps taking forever to focus.

    Now, on the logic of that, you have to consider that then you are making the system big and heavy with those lenses (not to mention very expensive)- and as good as those lenses are (I know they are very good, have seen the output from the 14-35 myself), the system becomes as a whole so expensive that it invites considering other options (E-5 + 14-35 alone is about $3,900 USD).

    In the end what new advancements buy more than anything is convenience, and if that convenience comes around with a particular brand and model, I say it's worth considering if you have the option, and if it will make your life easier - even if with the other it is possible, but not very easy.

    - Raist
    This is exactly what moves trough my head again and again. I know the E5 plus these 2 lenses will be heave, although excellent! I also know I almost never use my D700 - although it is an excellent system - but somehow it does not feel as comfortable to me as a camera could. The E5 does.

    I have basically 2 options - in any case sell all Nikon stuff and get:

    1) the discussed E5 system with 14-35 and 35-100 and use that also fo indoor available light shooting (extensively, I will need that in some 4 months from now )

    2) abandon any DSLR system and go back to M9 (buy one) and use all my M glass - including the 1.0/Nocti for that available light stuff. And use my GH2 as DSLR replacement. Especially adding the 100-300 for those occasions where I need long tele (I am very happy with the GH2).

    Interesting times ahead

    Anyway thanks for sharing your opinion about those lenses!

  44. #94
    Senior Member kweide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,631
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    When i shake my old head i can hear it bouncing from on side to the other, from left ear to right ear and it goes:

    M9 M9 M9 M9 M9 M9 M9 M9 M9 M9 M9 M9 M9 M9 M9 M9 M9 M9 M9 M9 M9 M9 M9 M9 M9

    This is so crazy. I love my E-5 but my perfect companion would be M9, so Peter, if you dont know what to with your M9 i do have some good ideas

    Klaus
    __________________________________________________
    Part of the Wonderland
    see more ( NSFW ) on : http://www.klaweide.de

  45. #95
    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: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by kweide View Post
    When i shake my old head i can hear it bouncing from on side to the other, from left ear to right ear and it goes:

    M9 M9 M9 M9 M9 M9 M9 M9 M9 M9 M9 M9 M9 M9 M9 M9 M9 M9 M9 M9 M9 M9 M9 M9 M9

    This is so crazy. I love my E-5 but my perfect companion would be M9, so Peter, if you dont know what to with your M9 i do have some good ideas

    Klaus
    HI Klaus
    I fear that Peter only has the lenses to give you, and not the M9 body. I have two bodies, but I'm much too mean to let you have one!

    My friend I fear you are doomed . . . that sort of reaction can only spell disaster. Don't sell your E5 though - it would make a very nice companion to the M9 for those Zoom moments. I don't hanker after those f2 Zuikos, but I still miss my lovely 12-60.

    all the best

    Just this guy you know

  46. #96
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,872
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Klaus,

    Jono is right, I currently do not have a M9 - I sold my M8 some 18 months ago and then could not get a M9, as it was sold out and then .. well you know how things happen. Anyway currently I do not have one but am considering, as I wrote in my previous post.

    Might also give me some time to wait and see what Oly is really doing with their 43 system and maybe jump in later

    PS: Jono, if you have 2 M9's you could sell one to me

  47. #97
    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: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    Klaus,

    Jono is right, I currently do not have a M9 - I sold my M8 some 18 months ago and then could not get a M9, as it was sold out and then .. well you know how things happen. Anyway currently I do not have one but am considering, as I wrote in my previous post.

    Might also give me some time to wait and see what Oly is really doing with their 43 system and maybe jump in later

    PS: Jono, if you have 2 M9's you could sell one to me
    Hi Peter
    I certainly could . . . . I fear my black one has a nasty ding on one side, and I love it too much to part with it. You could make me an outrageously high offer for the grey one!

    I like to have two - one with a 28 or 35, the other with a 50 or 75 (or even a 90).

    I'm astonished you've stayed aways so long if you have the glass.

    all the best

    Just this guy you know

  48. #98
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,872
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Hi Peter
    I certainly could . . . . I fear my black one has a nasty ding on one side, and I love it too much to part with it. You could make me an outrageously high offer for the grey one!

    I like to have two - one with a 28 or 35, the other with a 50 or 75 (or even a 90).

    I'm astonished you've stayed aways so long if you have the glass.

    all the best
    I will most certainly get one. As I said I have the need for a typical available light camera and I think - after trying all the other stuff, which partially is great - a Leica M9 with some of my high speed lenses (1.4/35ASPH, 1.4/50ASPH, 1.0/Nocti, 1.4/75 and 2/70 and 2/90/APO) will do me the best job.

    And it will give me time to see what Olympus will do with 43. I really love the E5 but I am not convinced on what they are doing in the future for that system. And investing in the 2.0 zooms is a lot of money, so I do not want to wake up and see this is going nowhere

    With Leica I am meanwhile sure that the M9 matured and will not be replaced before Photokina 2012, so somehow a safe investment. And I have the real need for it now. This was also the reason I did not buy one, as I was doing lot of landscape work with my H3D39 and this is a totally different and very exciting area. But for now (the next 2 years) I will not do much landscape work, although I will keep my H3D39, I love this camera.

    Thanks

    Peter

  49. #99
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Warsaw, Poland
    Posts
    188
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    I haven't looked in here since November when I wrote about my new E5 and compared it to D700. Since then many happy pics with the Oly and almost none with the Nikon. I added xz1 since for ultimate portability situations. This and E5 cover all my needs. I understand needs vary, but why agonize over picture comparisons taken in ****ty no light? This is not photography (drawing with light), used to be called surveillance. Not my line of work anyway.

  50. #100
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,872
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

    Ok, I know I am totally crazy, but today I did it!

    Returned my D700 and lenses and will get my E5 with 14-35 and 35-100 in about 2 weeks.

    All my test, research and RAW processing proved that the E5 in combination with high grade Olympus lenses is by far outperforming even FF cameras like the D700, even in combination with the best Nikon zooms from 14 to 200.

    At least up to ISO 1600, which looks more than ok to me in combination with high speed lenses!

    Hope it would have arrived already

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
  •