Site Sponsors
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 101 to 150 of 249

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

  1. #101
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,331
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

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

    Congratulations with your decisions. After having ruled out the alternatives, one after the other, I'm moving towards the same decision.

    Counting my pennies and making the final decision next week.

  2. #102
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Warsaw, Poland
    Posts
    188
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    You will be satisfied, Jorgen and Peter.
    You will get into the best glass in the photo world and optimal imaging.

  3. #103
    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
    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
    Great Stuff Peter
    I hope you really enjoy it - I'm sure you will, those lenses are lovely (and I always loved my E3). Just one thing . . . where's that 12-60 for those lighter moments?


    all the best

    Just this guy you know

  4. #104
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,331
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Great Stuff Peter
    I hope you really enjoy it - I'm sure you will, those lenses are lovely (and I always loved my E3). Just one thing . . . where's that 12-60 for those lighter moments?


    all the best
    Not a question for me, but here's my take anyway:
    Interestingly, the 12-60 is a lens that never fascinated me. Maybe it's because of the relatively slow aperture at the long end, maybe it's because the 14-35, the 11-22 and the 14-54/II are all sharper as well as having faster apertures.

    I've come to the conclusion that that I have increasing problems accepting lenses with weaknesses. Not because I'm a pixel peeper, but because I'm not a pixel peeper. And I have a bad memory. I can't run around trying to remember that this lens isn't really sharp in the corners at 12mm and f/2.8, or this one shouldn't be extended beyond 220mm.

    And I hate having to check images for sharpness, and then find that this really lovely shot can't be printed bigger than a thumbnail because the lower right corner looks like mud. (Unless of course it is mud, which it is a number of the places where I take photos, but that's another advantage using Olympus: the lens and camera is mud, dust, water, marmalade as well as coffee resistant.)

    It's so much simpler with a lens like the 14-35: It's sharp from 14mm to 35mm and from f/2.0 and up. Period. It does throw overboard most of what I've said the last few years about wanting a lightweight kit, but unless something sensational appears for m4/3 this year, it is the sharpest standard zoom in town, and if you only count those that offer IS, it's very far ahead of any competition.

    Which was one of the reasons for the start of this thread: a standard zoom that is sharp across the frame from f/2.0 and offers IS, offers so much advantage compared to the competition that the need to shoot at ISO 3200 or above mostly disappears. It's that simple.

  5. #105
    Member bcf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Lyon, France
    Posts
    125
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    It does throw overboard most of what I've said the last few years about wanting a lightweight kit, but unless something sensational appears for m4/3 this year, it is the sharpest standard zoom in town, and if you only count those that offer IS, it's very far ahead of any competition.
    Well, to each his own

    For my use, having to carry this humongous, 915g lens is utterly unthinkable, except perhaps for events or weddings. But travelling with this lens, doing street photo with it, I shudder...
    -- Bernard

  6. #106
    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.

    Peter,Jorgen - congrats on the E5 and it sounds very good.
    I agree with two things:

    1) I hate pixel peeping and testing and returning lenses etc etc. To have a good lens which works fine at all f-stops and over the whole range is a real releaf.

    2) IMO the high high ISO are overrated. Once upon a time when I shot film (allready had some fast M-glass) I mostly prefered 50 and 64 ISO films over 200 ISO and got along fine for most of my photography.
    With the M8 and M9 I feel I can shoot many things at ISO 640 and lower.

    So with f2.0 and ISO1600 one should be pretty flexible.

    For my taste I prefer good low ISO color and tonality over the last little bit of high ISO performance.

  7. #107
    Senior Member JMaher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sarasota
    Posts
    942
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    16

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

    Congratulations on the E5. It sounds like it will suit your needs. However, I also wonder about the 12-60. When I shot an E3 it was by far my favorite lens.

    Jim

  8. #108
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,331
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

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

    Quote Originally Posted by bcf View Post
    Well, to each his own

    For my use, having to carry this humongous, 915g lens is utterly unthinkable, except perhaps for events or weddings. But travelling with this lens, doing street photo with it, I shudder...
    Ah.... but that's what m4/3 is for. GH1/2 with Pana 7-14 plus a couple of primes make an incredible travel set. And when really light/small is required, there's the GF2 or E-PL2 with Pana 20/1.7. Still the same system with the same (more or less) sensor and with lenses that are downwards compatible. In a crisis, the E-PL2 can be used as a backup for the E-3 with the same lenses. Try that with a Canon G12 and an EOS 1Dsomething...

  9. #109
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,862
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Great Stuff Peter
    I hope you really enjoy it - I'm sure you will, those lenses are lovely (and I always loved my E3). Just one thing . . . where's that 12-60 for those lighter moments?


    all the best
    Jono,

    much appreciated, I am meanwhile sure I will enjoy it. I did a lot of investigation upfront and a high percentage of my tests was pointing me to this system.

    I will follow up wit some more lenses, especially the 12-60, but for the deal in exchanging my D700 system this is what I got.

    I am very happy

    Peter

  10. #110
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,862
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    Ah.... but that's what m4/3 is for. GH1/2 with Pana 7-14 plus a couple of primes make an incredible travel set. And when really light/small is required, there's the GF2 or E-PL2 with Pana 20/1.7. Still the same system with the same (more or less) sensor and with lenses that are downwards compatible. In a crisis, the E-PL2 can be used as a backup for the E-3 with the same lenses. Try that with a Canon G12 and an EOS 1Dsomething...
    Jorgen,

    what is actually your experience with EPL2? Is it a real step up on IQ compared to the EP2 (which is already a great performer)?

    Thanks

  11. #111
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,925
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Hmm. I see Peter is ordering his E-5 and Jorgen is on the verge. I hope you enjoy it as much as I do.

    I'm delighted with this camera. It does exactly what I wanted and feels great doing it. And, thus far, I've seen nothing in the image quality it produces to compel me to think of another system.

  12. #112
    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 Jorgen Udvang View Post
    Not a question for me, but here's my take anyway:
    Interestingly, the 12-60 is a lens that never fascinated me. Maybe it's because of the relatively slow aperture at the long end, maybe it's because the 14-35, the 11-22 and the 14-54/II are all sharper as well as having faster apertures.

    I've come to the conclusion that that I have increasing problems accepting lenses with weaknesses. Not because I'm a pixel peeper, but because I'm not a pixel peeper. And I have a bad memory. I can't run around trying to remember that this lens isn't really sharp in the corners at 12mm and f/2.8, or this one shouldn't be extended beyond 220mm.
    HI Jorgen
    I quite agree . . . . but my 12-60 was sharper than my 11-22 and the 14-54 (never had the big f2 zooms), and was also perfectly useable at all focal lengths . . . or at least, I was never aware of a limitation!
    I nearly always stop using lenses which have caveats about their use, for the same reason (I can never remember quite what the problem was). . . . . but the 12-60 never seemed to have problems!

    Just this guy you know

  13. #113
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,331
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    Jorgen,

    what is actually your experience with EPL2? Is it a real step up on IQ compared to the EP2 (which is already a great performer)?

    Thanks
    Just tried the E-PL2 briefly in the shop. No idea about image quality so far. I'm trying to decide between that and the GF2 for compact. The latter, I can get as body only, which makes it half price compared to the Olympus with a lens that I don't want (zoom or 17mm), so the Panasonic is tempting. OTOH, the Olympus has IBIS and a better EVF. Choices, choices...

  14. #114
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,862
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    Just tried the E-PL2 briefly in the shop. No idea about image quality so far. I'm trying to decide between that and the GF2 for compact. The latter, I can get as body only, which makes it half price compared to the Olympus with a lens that I don't want (zoom or 17mm), so the Panasonic is tempting. OTOH, the Olympus has IBIS and a better EVF. Choices, choices...
    Just because of the better EVF and the IS I would take the EPL2. I am also considering this one as a compact alternative t the XZ1, which seems to have fairly good IQ, but of course falls behind a m43 camera.

  15. #115
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,331
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

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

    There are apparently some sample variations. Generally, it's seems to be an excellent lens, but those I have talked with so far (not very many) claim that the 11-22 is sharper and has less distortion at the wide end while the 14-54/II is sharper at the long end.

    One of the advantages with the 14-35 is that each copy is probably tested individually (which the price reflects). Apart from weight and size, I haven't heard a single negative comment about that lens. Tried it again today on an E-5. Subjectively, the viewfinder with that lens seems bigger and brighter than on my D300 with the Tamron 17-50, but that may also be because I want it to be that way

    I attended a press conference today. As usual in this country, there were mostly Canons. Many interesting comments when I pulled out the GH1 with 7-14, switched to Xpan mode, positioned myself in front of everybody else and still got the shot with everything in the frame that should be there

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    HI Jorgen
    I quite agree . . . . but my 12-60 was sharper than my 11-22 and the 14-54 (never had the big f2 zooms), and was also perfectly useable at all focal lengths . . . or at least, I was never aware of a limitation!
    I nearly always stop using lenses which have caveats about their use, for the same reason (I can never remember quite what the problem was). . . . . but the 12-60 never seemed to have problems!

  16. #116
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,862
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    There are apparently some sample variations. Generally, it's seems to be an excellent lens, but those I have talked with so far (not very many) claim that the 11-22 is sharper and has less distortion at the wide end while the 14-54/II is sharper at the long end.

    One of the advantages with the 14-35 is that each copy is probably tested individually (which the price reflects). Apart from weight and size, I haven't heard a single negative comment about that lens. Tried it again today on an E-5. Subjectively, the viewfinder with that lens seems bigger and brighter than on my D300 with the Tamron 17-50, but that may also be because I want it to be that way

    I attended a press conference today. As usual in this country, there were mostly Canons. Many interesting comments when I pulled out the GH1 with 7-14, switched to Xpan mode, positioned myself in front of everybody else and still got the shot with everything in the frame that should be there
    Just wait till you have the E5 and 14-35, then you will be taken serious again

  17. #117
    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 Jorgen Udvang View Post
    There are apparently some sample variations. Generally, it's seems to be an excellent lens, but those I have talked with so far (not very many) claim that the 11-22 is sharper and has less distortion at the wide end while the 14-54/II is sharper at the long end.

    ...
    Oh God,
    sample variation - again - I hate that.

  18. #118
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,331
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

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

    Quote Originally Posted by t_streng View Post
    Oh God,
    sample variation - again - I hate that.
    Nothing compared to my Tamron 17-50. Variation within one lens, changing over time. Just as I thought I had it under control (lower left corner at 17mm), the whole upper third becomes unsharp at 50mm. No, nothing seems loose, but I guess something is anyway.

  19. #119
    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 Jorgen Udvang View Post
    One of the advantages with the 14-35 is that each copy is probably tested individually (which the price reflects). Apart from weight and size, I haven't heard a single negative comment about that lens. Tried it again today on an E-5. Subjectively, the viewfinder with that lens seems bigger and brighter than on my D300 with the Tamron 17-50, but that may also be because I want it to be that way
    Well, okay, but I dangle in front of you the Sony A900 with the Sony Zeiss 24-75 - roughly the same weight, the same price and definitely brighter viewfinder. Not weathersealed however . . . . On the other hand, mine's been out in the rain on a number of occasions without apparently suffering.

    I've not heard a negative comment about the 14-35 either, apart from it's size and weight, and it being a pity that it doesn't go a bit wider.

    Just this guy you know

  20. #120
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,331
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Well, okay, but I dangle in front of you the Sony A900 with the Sony Zeiss 24-75 - roughly the same weight, the same price and definitely brighter viewfinder. Not weathersealed however . . . . On the other hand, mine's been out in the rain on a number of occasions without apparently suffering.

    I've not heard a negative comment about the 14-35 either, apart from it's size and weight, and it being a pity that it doesn't go a bit wider.
    Interesting that you mention that. After all my research, and I've done a lot this time, my conclusion is that the two best normal zooms when all factors are considered, are the Zuiko and the Zoyss. Then it boils down to other elements. Weather sealing is obviously one. Another, which may not be important for all people and that counts in the direction of Sony, is that Olympus lacks a couple of primes that are important to me.

    The most obvious omission is a 135mm eqv. It's easily fixed with a 50mm plus TC of course, but a TC is a TC, and to make it a fast combo, it would have to be with the Sigma. I don't know if anybody have tried that.

    Then of course the Zoyss 135mm isn't exactly what you'd call a compact lens, but it's clearly one of the most desirable out there. The 85/1.4 on one of the crop bodies would also do that job beautifully. That's what I use with Nikon.

    And there's the big unknown, the SD1, and the rumoured m4/3 pro body (and hopefully matching lenses). I was offered a reasonable price for some of the Nikon gear yesterday, so I've started the migration process, but to what? Zeiko?

  21. #121
    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 Jorgen Udvang View Post
    The most obvious omission is a 135mm eqv. It's easily fixed with a 50mm plus TC of course, but a TC is a TC, and to make it a fast combo, it would have to be with the Sigma. I don't know if anybody have tried that.

    Then of course the Zoyss 135mm isn't exactly what you'd call a compact lens, but it's clearly one of the most desirable out there.
    Jorgen . . if you like 135mm, then the SZ f1.8 is the most sublime lens, flawless and faultless . . . like the Zuiko 14-35, I've never heard anyone say a bad word about this lens - It may not be compact, (10% heavier than the Zuiko 14-35) but it's a thing of joy and wonder.
    Accept no compromises!

    Just this guy you know

  22. #122
    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 Jorgen Udvang View Post
    Weather sealing is obviously one.
    P.S. there is a LL comparison between the A900 (which is not weathersealed) and the 5d (which is) in the Arctic, where various Sony A900 bodies survived much better.
    Piece of mind is important of course, but I've never seen reports of the Sony gear suffering in bad weather, and I've actually tested mine in driving rain, without issue (or guarantee!)

    Just this guy you know

  23. #123
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,331
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Jorgen . . if you like 135mm, then the SZ f1.8 is the most sublime lens, flawless and faultless . . . like the Zuiko 14-35, I've never heard anyone say a bad word about this lens - It may not be compact, (10% heavier than the Zuiko 14-35) but it's a thing of joy and wonder.
    Accept no compromises!
    So I should have an E-5 with the 14-35mm, an A850 with the 135mm and if I need a 200mm, I'll just add the pie-in-the-sky A77 for the 135mm... oh, and let's not forget the GH1 with the 7-14mm. That makes sense. Only four camera bodies

  24. #124
    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 Jorgen Udvang View Post
    So I should have an E-5 with the 14-35mm, an A850 with the 135mm and if I need a 200mm, I'll just add the pie-in-the-sky A77 for the 135mm... oh, and let's not forget the GH1 with the 7-14mm. That makes sense. Only four camera bodies
    well, you could . . . . but you could just settle for an A900 with the 24-70, the 135 and the 200 G and forget about the rest.
    In what circumstances is the E5 with a 14-35 going to be better than an A900 with the 24-75 (just asking!)?

    Just this guy you know

  25. #125
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,925
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    well, you could . . . . but you could just settle for an A900 with the 24-70, the 135 and the 200 G and forget about the rest.
    In what circumstances is the E5 with a 14-35 going to be better than an A900 with the 24-75 (just asking!)?
    When you want to open the lens up more due to lower light and get more DoF in the bargain. That's my usual need. Besides the fact that the 14-35 is likely a better lens anyway, and the E-5 outperforms the A900 in low light.

    But that's just hearsay. ]'-)

  26. #126
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,331
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

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

    There are two other advantages with the E-5 as well:

    - It works very well with legacy lenses (which I have lots of)
    - The GH1 (which I have) can be used as backup and supplement. The A55 would work fine as a backup for a big Sony too, but then I would have to change the GH1 and 7-14 for an A55 with Tokina 11-16 or something similar. I've found that having a small camera ready with an UWA lens permanently mounted is extremely convenient.

  27. #127
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,862
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Need to chime in here on the A900-Sony vs. E5-Olympus debate:

    I had the Sony and I was not happy with it, I could not really see that there were 24MPs at least not in combination with the Zeiss lenses. I know I am obviously pretty alone here with saying that, but I found the Sony made Zeiss lenses pretty inferior to the Nikkor pro grade glass! I also tried the 135, beautiful lens, but again I would not like to carry it! Plus I never could get friend with the colors coming out of the A900, actually preferred the D700 colors more - I know I am also pretty alone with that opinion.

    Having said that, the E5 delivers absolutely stunning results because it simply has a very weal AA filter. Combine that with the great colors out of the camera and with the excellence of the high grade Zuikos and you have a winner. Plus why care about any high speed primes, if you have high speed zooms!

    Also you can add some unique high speed primes like the 2/150, a lens I will for sure get again, as it is a stellar performer and I used it on my E1 as my main portrait lens. I would forget ANY Zeiss prime for that lens!

    Not sure if this helps but all I say comes from my lustful and painful experiences with several camera systems and come also really from my heart!

    PS: I fell very sad about the fact that Zeiss glass (at least Sony made) does no longer compare to what you got from Zeiss when it was for Contax, Hasselblad and also M. These new designs have far too many compromises and also you can feel that they are made with a fairly cheap end product in mind.

    Oh well, I will get hammered for that one again

  28. #128
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,331
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

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

    Peter, Jono and others,
    One of the most surprising things with the E-5 is what happens when a low-ISO file is enlarged. If I re-size it to the same height as a photo from the A850 or 900, the amount of detail seems to be the same as with the Sony. Noise increases, but my guess is that it can be controlled rather easily with some noise detergent, at least up to a point. DR of the Sony seems better, which is to be expected.

    Like Peter, I prefer the colours from Olympus, but I like Sony better than Nikon in this respect. Difficult to discuss taste.

    I went out to try the A850 today for the umpteenth time. It's nice, but I like the ergonomics of the E-5 better. The good lenses for the Sony are good, but they are all expensive and they are all rather large. How solid everything is, I don't know. It's an industrial product marketed through chain-stores, which brings me to another side of this:

    When Sony launched their Alpha-series, they were everywhere in Bangkok. Almost all of the good camera shops had a more or less complete selection, and they promoted it actively. Now, they are mostly to be found at Sony's own stores and some chain-stores, except the odd camera that can be found here and there. This of course doesn't say much about the quality of cameras and lenses, but it says rather a lot about what kind of after sales support that can be expected. The staff at the chain stores can usually list a number of key features for each camera, but try to explain a focusing problem. "Yes, but it has 24 megapixels."

    And as much as the (very good) Sony cameras and lenses give me the feeling of mass-produced commercial goods, the E-5 and gives me the opposite feeling: It doesn't look very fancy, but I get the feeling of holding something that somebody crafted from one solid block of aluminium, especially for me. The 14-35mm gives me that feeling to an even stronger degree.

    This will obviously not do anything whatsoever for my photography, but as a tool, the Olympus suits me for some reason. Maybe it's just nostalgia (my OM-1 was my main camera for 30 years) and maybe it's because I see some fantastic photos sometimes, particularly from the 14-35 and 150mm lenses.

    Nothing decided yet, but...

  29. #129
    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 Jorgen Udvang View Post

    And as much as the (very good) Sony cameras and lenses give me the feeling of mass-produced commercial goods, the E-5 and gives me the opposite feeling: It doesn't look very fancy, but I get the feeling of holding something that somebody crafted from one solid block of aluminium, especially for me. The 14-35mm gives me that feeling to an even stronger degree.

    This will obviously not do anything whatsoever for my photography, but as a tool, the Olympus suits me for some reason. Maybe it's just nostalgia (my OM-1 was my main camera for 30 years) and maybe it's because I see some fantastic photos sometimes, particularly from the 14-35 and 150mm lenses.

    Nothing decided yet, but...
    Well, I actually subscribe to almost all of that (I'm not convinced about the low ISO resolution to be honest, but everything else).
    My A900 has actually performed excellently, but it certainly looks like it's been used a lot . . . . Unlike my E3 - which looked the same after a couple of years of heavy use as it did to start with. . . . and an E1 which I can see from here.

    Just this guy you know

  30. #130
    Member bcf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Lyon, France
    Posts
    125
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    Ah.... but that's what m4/3 is for. GH1/2 with Pana 7-14 plus a couple of primes make an incredible travel set. And when really light/small is required, there's the GF2 or E-PL2 with Pana 20/1.7. Still the same system with the same (more or less) sensor and with lenses that are downwards compatible. In a crisis, the E-PL2 can be used as a backup for the E-3 with the same lenses. Try that with a Canon G12 and an EOS 1Dsomething...
    When it comes down to it, purely in terms of image quality, would you feel the E-5 has advantages over the GH1/2 or EPL1/2? I know the build is better, weather-sealed, etc. But image quality?
    -- Bernard

  31. #131
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,862
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by bcf View Post
    When it comes down to it, purely in terms of image quality, would you feel the E-5 has advantages over the GH1/2 or EPL1/2? I know the build is better, weather-sealed, etc. But image quality?
    IQ wise it has some advantage I would say. Or let me put it the other way: if Olympus had taken the 18(16)MP sensor of the GH2 in the E5 with similar weak AA filter and same processing, the results would be another step improved! In my opinion the "old" 12MP sensor of the E5 is the weakest point.

    I guess Olympus was not given the latest 18MP Panasonic sensor and also they will be able to use sensors from other vendors in the future, so this part is going to improve significantly!

    But already with the existing sensor in the E5 the Olympus engineers are able to produce stunning results!

  32. #132
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,331
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    IQ wise it has some advantage I would say. Or let me put it the other way: if Olympus had taken the 18(16)MP sensor of the GH2 in the E5 with similar weak AA filter and same processing, the results would be another step improved! In my opinion the "old" 12MP sensor of the E5 is the weakest point.

    I guess Olympus was not given the latest 18MP Panasonic sensor and also they will be able to use sensors from other vendors in the future, so this part is going to improve significantly!

    But already with the existing sensor in the E5 the Olympus engineers are able to produce stunning results!
    +1

    What this always shows is that there's some really excellent expertise gathered at Olympus. That bodes well for the future, doesn't it?

  33. #133
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,862
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    +1

    What this always shows is that there's some really excellent expertise gathered at Olympus. That bodes well for the future, doesn't it?
    I do really hope so! Cannot wait to get my E7 with 20MP and high ISO NO NOISE performance of 12800

  34. #134
    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
    I do really hope so! Cannot wait to get my E7 with 20MP and high ISO NO NOISE performance of 12800
    If it's the size of the E1 I'll have one of them too!

    Just this guy you know

  35. #135
    Senior Member Riley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Adelaide Hills South Australia
    Posts
    441
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    E5 is not a high ISO machine, it holds its own variously to ISO1250-1600 but like APSC falls off a cliff somewhere in there. What is does do is better at lower ISO, and if you are looking for differences thats where you should look. OTOH if you are looking for high ISO performance that does better than make do, look elsewhere.

    On reviews, some of these reviews of late lack competence and credibility, you should look at them with some caution, and read them with a pinch of salt. All the E5 images were shot at least twice at dpr, the originals they offered inexplicably had NF OFF, the next series, including res chart and studio shots were all at f/8 were diffraction will come into play. Under pressure from a certain complainant they reshot the res chart at f/5.6, but then they still posted the wrong res chart crops and had to be made aware of that, the reply was curt.

    Keep in mind there were 3 reviewers for this camera and it took them months to complete a review half the size of many others.

  36. #136
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,331
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

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

    Riley,
    Low light doesn't necessarily mean high ISO. One of my points when I started this thread was that the Zuiko 14-35mm f/2.0 is mostly sharper at f/2.0 than both of Nikon's pro quality standard zooms are at f/2.8. Add to that the fact that the E-5 has IBIS (none of those Nikkor zooms have VR), and the Nikon high ISO advantage is more or less gone.

    Dpr's take on Olympus has always been a bit difficult to understand, at least until m4/3. I was actually positively surprised that they rated the E-5 as high as they did. But there are many other review sites out there that are much worse. But it's all free of charge, so I guess we get what we deserve

  37. #137
    Senior Member Riley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Adelaide Hills South Australia
    Posts
    441
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    cleaner high ISO ought be cleaner low ISO in circumstances where one would expect noise too. I shoot this camera every working day, Im pretty well up with what it can do. It does really well at low ISO, the break even point is somewhere above 800ISO. FWIW this is low ISO on a tripod


  38. #138
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,862
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Up till ISO 1600 I am getting nice and clean high ISO shots.

    From that till ISO 5000 the noise increases, but still is useable. Actually more details than a D700 would produce!

    Above ISO 5000 images can become too noisy. Depends on exact metering. And of course on the quality of noise reduction SW.

    Add to that IBIS and the high speed zooms with 2.0 and you have an absolutely winning combination. WHich definitely tops all other brands DSLRs and lens combinations.

    It is always about how you use a system. And how experienced you are. If you use the E5 properly, then it really rocks!

  39. #139
    Senior Member Riley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Adelaide Hills South Australia
    Posts
    441
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    lets not imply Im inexperienced

  40. #140
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,331
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Riley View Post
    lets not imply Im inexperienced
    I don't think anybody would make that mistake. I think I've seen your name on Olympus fora since the beginning of time, or maybe even before that

  41. #141
    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
    Add to that IBIS and the high speed zooms with 2.0 and you have an absolutely winning combination. WHich definitely tops all other brands DSLRs and lens combinations.
    Hi Peter - that's some praise - I'm really glad you're happy with it.

    Just this guy you know

  42. #142
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,862
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    E5 with 2/35-100, ISO 200

  43. #143
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,862
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    E5 with 2/35-100, ISO 3200

  44. #144
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,862
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    E5 with 35 year old 3.5/50, both ISO 1600, no adjustments in post processing!

  45. #145
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,862
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Some more with E5 and 3.5/50 Macro, as my 2/14-35 and 2/35-100 did not arrive yet. Good exercise to work with just 1 focal length again. I start loving this lens

  46. #146
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,331
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    E5 with 2/35-100, ISO 3200
    This one surprises me. Any noise treatment?

  47. #147
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,862
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Standard settings in LR3.3 - see attched

  48. #148
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,862
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Another two in C1Pro, again standard settings .....

    Again E5, 2/35-100, ISO 3200

  49. #149
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,115
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    When you want to open the lens up more due to lower light and get more DoF in the bargain. That's my usual need. Besides the fact that the 14-35 is likely a better lens anyway, and the E-5 outperforms the A900 in low light.

    But that's just hearsay. ]'-)
    That is not true, the E-5 doesn't outperform the A900 in low light. Using modern raw conveyers like LR 3.3 gives at best the same kind of 100% view performance, but since the A900 has so much more megapixels than the E-5, for a valid comparison you resize down and the A900 wins that hands down. That is- if the A900 doesn't perform a bit better at high ISO to begin with which could very well be the case. Moreover, the A900 has definitively more DR.

    - Raist

  50. #150
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,115
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    +1

    What this always shows is that there's some really excellent expertise gathered at Olympus. That bodes well for the future, doesn't it?
    The future is all pen, not 4/3rds. Something to keep in mind when buying the 14-35 though if they honor their promise to support it in the prospec body it should be ok.

    What I would warn yo about the 14-35 is this: Yes it is very sharp, and nice. Great contrast. It's excellent *but* in moderate to low light it hunts and takes forever to AF. Now if you are a guy that does MF this doesn't affect you at all. But if you rely on AF, watch out. Even on the E-5, has been reported by quite many.

    - Raist

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
  •