The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

jonoslack

Active member
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!
 

jonoslack

Active member
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!)
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
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 :ROTFL:
 

jonoslack

Active member
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 :ROTFL:
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!)?
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
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. ]'-)
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
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.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
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 :D
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
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...
 

jonoslack

Active member
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.
 

bcf

Member
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?
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
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!
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
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?
 

Riley

New member
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.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
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 :)
 

Riley

New member
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

 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
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!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top