Site Sponsors
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 249

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

  1. #1
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

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

    I posted this on a thread at dpr today. I find the subject so interesting that I repeat it here:

    I did a photo shoot yesterday. It was indoor in dim light, no tripod possible, and flash not really usable, since the images should show people in a natural atmosphere with natural lighting.

    I used a Nikon D700, half of the time with an 80-200mm f/2.8 and half of the time with the 50mm f/1.8. ISO varied from 800 to 3200. This morning, after reading a thread at dpr about the E-5 review, I asked myself if I could have done the job with a Nikon D7000 or even an Olympus E-5. So I studied the high ISO samples at dpreview, comparing the Olympus, the D7000 and the D3s (The D700 doesn't come up in the comparisons).

    The D3s is easily 2 stops better than the E-5, so even with the 35-100 f/2.0, I would be one stop noisier. The comparison with the D7000 is different, however. I would gain one stop because of the faster lens, and comparing ISO800 on the E-5 with ISO1600 from the D7000, the E-5 is better rather than worse, One can of course claim that the 35-200/2.0 is an expensive lens, but so is the Nikkor 70-200.

    If we switch to primes, and let's use 50mm eqv. f/1.4 for comparison's sake (That would be Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 for the D3s/700, Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 for the D7000 and Panaleica 25mm f/1.4 for the E-5), the situation is more or less the same. The Olympus loses 1-2 stops on the sensor, but gains 1-3 stops because of IBIS. I would say that the E-5 combo is superior to the D7000 here, and much cheaper.

    I don't own an Olympus camera at the moment, but quality of the lenses is so good that I'm tempted by the E-5. The excellent rendering of detail and the complete feature set of the camera makes it a very usable option for all kinds of photography, and absolutely not only for existing users and fanboys.

    Unfortunately, the review at dpr fails to see the whole picture here.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    261
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    I expect a D7000 with 35/1.8 will be better than an E5 with 25/1.4 in low light. The Nikon combo will also cost a lot less ($1400 vs $2600). And will be more comfortable to use over extended periods given that it weighs about 1/3 less.
    Last edited by lambert; 4th February 2011 at 21:55.

  3. #3
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

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

    Quote Originally Posted by lambert View Post
    A D7000 with 35/1.8 will be better than an E5 with 25/1.4 in low light. The Nikon combo will also cost a lot less ($1400 vs $2600).
    The D7000 with 35/1.8 has no IS. Already because of the 2/3 stop slower lens, a lot of the sensor advantage has been eaten up. With the addition of IS, the E-5 will be vastly superior unless there are moving subject involved, which will make the D7000 better, but not much.

    It's also worth noting that the only large aperture normal zoom from Nikon, the 17-55/2.8 also lacks IS. For Olympus, there's one very fast (14-35/2.0) zoom, which is stabilised, and two relatively fast (14-54/2.8-3.5 and 12-60/2.8-4.0) for which there are no corresponding Nikkors at all. This is probably even more important than the lenses I mentioned initially. I've been using the Tamron 17-50/2.8 on my Nikons and Fujis for almost three years, and while I was quite happy to start with, serious issues have appeared over time. I simply can't trust the lens to be critically sharp. Tokina and Sigma seems to have similar issues, which leaves me with the sharp, but heavy, large and expensive Nikon. Then I ask myself is an E-5 might be a better idea anyway.

    Yes, I know, Pentax... but in this country, Pentax is distributed by a chain of department stores. If it breaks, it's broken. Buy a new one. That way they make more profit, and I get a new camera...

    The obvious way for a Nikon owner like myself is obviously to upgrade my Nikon gear, but since I need to upgrade more or less the whole lot, from D300 to D7000, D700 or whatever comes after that one, from Tamron 17-50 to Nikkor 17-55 and from 80-200 AF-S to 70-200 AF-S VRII, I can actually switch to Olympus for more and less the same cost and use the GH1 for backup and video.

    What annoys me is that, at the end of reviews of cameras from smaller brands, like Olympus and Pentax, there's almost always a little note stating something about "but remember, even if this is a great camera, it's mostly for fanboys and other weirdos".

    Oh well... in a few months, Nikon will probably sweep the floor with the new D8000, with 30MP FX sensor and a body the size of my GH1...

  4. #4
    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.

    Jorgen,

    I am kind of in the same dilemma! I own a D700 and all the new 2.8 zooms from 14-200, I was pretty happy with that combo, at least till I tried the E5 last week.

    The colors out of the E5, light metering, IS etc are SO MUCH BETTER than the D700. Also details of the image are much better, at least if you use the 2/35-100. IS is so much more effective compared to the 70-200VR2. And you get IS for all the lenses on the E5, whereas the 14-24 and 24-70 on the D700 are not stabilized.

    Which brings me to the next point. Sure the D700 has better high ISO performance, but: if you use the 2.0 lenses from Olympus, this in combination with the more advanced IS in the E5 makes more than up for the additional higher ISO capabilities of the D700. And what you get from the E5 at high ISO is a very nice, film like look, which totally lacks in the D700 images at ISO3200 and above - they look clean like plastic.

    I am very sure that the E5 wins hands down against the D7000 and 60D, 7D etc. I am already since a very long time tired of the dpreview reviews, this site remains in my browser only to see latest announcements somehow in time but I could no longer care less about their reviews - just pure BS in my opinion - if you please excuse my wording!

    Now I have the E5 with the 12-60 and 35-100 for testing over the weekend and I already am in love with that camera. It can be operated much more efficient than the D700, very much like a Leica could be operated - if you know what I mean. The menues are much easier and straight forward as the Nikon (and Canon and Pentax and Sony) ones and still give you all control you want to have. And the light metering system is so much ahead of all the competition that it almost is a shame that others cannot come close after so many years! AF is lightning fast in good to moderate light, it gets slower till slow in bad light, but on the other side I never use AF assist, which would improve this behavior. I personally do not feel that I miss the Nikon D700 AF (which I find to be top of the notch today). But I can nicely survive with the E5's AF as it is today, for the type of shooting I do more than enough.

    So end of the day I am VERY attracted by the E5 and some of their lenses again. I say again, as I went out of their system some 4 years ago, because my E3 had flaws and nobody could fix them. Meanwhile I have the impression, that the E5 is the top E system camera, with that Olympus has reached absolute perfect and professional quality.

    Further I talked to Olympus in person and they assured me that the professional E system will continue, so there will be 43 lenses and the E5 and for sure also something like an E6 or E7, which will be an absolute Pro camera body - like the E5 today. It might have only EVF left then, but in pro quality - who knows. And in parallel of course it is obvious that Olympus will put lot of emphasis in the M43 system. So the consumer cameras will be based on this system, or at least be kind of able to take both 43 and M43 lenses (obviously with an adapter).

    All that together makes me very confident in the E system. But what is even more important - with the E5 as it is today - I can survive happily the next 3-5 years. And I absolutely do not care about anything further down the road

  5. #5
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

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

    Peter,
    Very relieving to read your post. I re-read my own, just to check that I'm not going crazy, but in that case, we both are

    The amazing thing is that my comparison is done with dpr's own sample photo. Still, they don't see it. When the E-5 is at ISO 800 and the D7000 at 1600, the E-5 shows more detail and less noise. What is even more astonishing is that, with both cameras at ISO 800, the E-5s show much more detail than the D7000, in spite of fewer megapixels.

    Another thing I've noticed during my shooting lately is that, although I've always considered Nikon ergonomics very good, changing parameters is mostly faster with the GH1. That is obviously partly due to the EVF, but also because I need an extra, third hand to push the buttons on the top left, if the lens is too heavy to hold the camera with one.

    As for colours, I can confirm what you say. Skin colours in mixed lighting is particularly problematic, which is one of the reasons why I used Fuji cameras. But Olympus, and even Panasonic, are much better in this respect.

  6. #6
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    The amazing thing is that my comparison is done with dpr's own sample photo. Still, they don't see it.
    I'm not positive but, I think DPR sees very clearly - the pay-stubs from their ad-spaces and promoters.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Essex UK
    Posts
    71
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    I have been in and out of Olympus for around 6/7 years now, E500, E330, E1, E510 and E3, 11/22, 12/60, 50 macro, 50/200
    Most of it is sold now

    I really like Oly and it's nice being different, however I am nervous about investing to heavily with them, I am not convinced that the E5 won't be the last of the SLR Camera from them.

    Even with M4/3 they are continually losing ground to Panasonic IMO. For a company that produces such wonderful 4/3 glass, where is it in M/43

    I shoot with a G1, EPL1, D700 and D90. I tend to do a lot of pixel level editing and the files from the D700 have so much more latitude compared to the 4/3 sensor, and of course it should.

    The D700 is a fine Camera but I hate the weight and I just have more passion for Oly but I am just not convinced about there future.
    Just my humble opinion of course

  8. #8
    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.

    Well, try as I might, I cannot see what you are seeing Jorgen... To my eyes the 1600 ISO RAW from the D7000 shows more detail than the 800 ISO one from the E-5, which looks "mushy" in comparison and obviously would be much less malleable in post. And of course no comparison with a D700, which I have.

    I had an OM-1, OM-2, OM-4 then E-1, which I loved, then I switched to a D200 and now a D700. I do have a soft spot for Olympus and their marvelous lenses. I too hate the weight of the D700, and would love a lighter system. Well, the E-5 is not lighter. And nothing compares to the D700 at high ISO in that size and weight (well, maybe the 5DMkII). Not the D7000, not the Pentax K-5. So... I'm afraid it will still be D700 with light primes for me (or the old 28-50mm Nikon AI-S zoom, which I got recently and is small and very good).

    I understand that coming from a D300 you might see things differently, but I really do not see what you are seeing in DPR RAW samples... Are we looking at the same images? I am comparing for instance DSC_1888.NER (D7000, ISO 1600) with PC200825.ORF (E-5, ISO800).
    -- Bernard

  9. #9
    Member kwalsh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    147
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    I'm not seeing this extra detail in the E-5 compared to the D7000 at all. I'm definitely seeing that the E-5 is doing an amazing job of resolving detail give its 12MP, just like DPR points out. But I've gone over the image at ISO 800 and 1600 repeatedly in RAW on DPR and there is no point at which the E-5 is out resolving the D7000 except at the very margins of the image where the Olympus optics are out resolving the Nikon optics. At all the points in the center of the image (fur, feathers, fabric, text, money) the D7000 is the same or better than the E-5.

    You might be falling for the classic "grain/noise increases apparent acuity" illusion. The Oly image is slightly noisier for sure.

    Anyway, as far as IBIS and optics available for Olympus goes I think you've got something there. A camera is definitely more than just its sensor and some test images and measurements!

    Ken

  10. #10
    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.

    I need to revert my opinion a bit, after shooting the E5 especially with the 35-100 for today.

    The E5 really handles perfect, does a perfect job and great color out of the camera, as also great exposure metering etc. - this is granted! And it probably is the best 43 DSLR ever made. And no single out of focus image, even in bad light.

    BUT - late afternoon, early evening I did a lot of comparisons between E5 with 35-100 and D700 with 70-200VR2. To make it short, all results from the D700 at all ISO are better WRT noise and clarity. I think this is because the 70-200VR2 is a very good lens, it also tends to much less over lightning if objects are photographed against the sun setting down and simply the D700 chip is twice the size, which gives much better low ISO performance, although this chip/camera design is now already 3 years old. And it is also clear that the DR of the D700 is much better, there is much more detail in the shadows, where the E5 simply cannot show any more details, because of the noise. We are talking about 1600 - 3200 from the E5 and 3200 - 6400 from the D700.

    Even at low ISO (200 or 400) the D700 delivers much clearer images as the E5, which can be of course also seen as "plastic look" and the bit more grainy look of the E5 as more film like. But it simply is an unfair comparison between a 43 chip and a FF chip.

    WRT size and handling - the D700 with 24-70 or 70-200 is almost same size and weight as the E5 with 14-35 or 35-200 respectively. The only thing which I cannot deny is that the E5 operation is for me much more logical compared to the D700. But again this might be just my subjective feeling.

    To make the long story short - I found that I will stay with the D700 and lenses and not switch back to Olympus and their E5, simply not worth the effort and money because I would just get less overall IQ and had to pump money in. Somehow I hate this findings, but the results are so clear that I cannot just ignore them.

    Jorgen, WRT your thoughts, I still think the E5 is better (or equally good) as the APSC size 16MP DSLRs - I cannot compare to D7000, but to K5 and here I would clearly prefer the E5 and Oly glass.

  11. #11
    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

    Jorgen, WRT your thoughts, I still think the E5 is better (or equally good) as the APSC size 16MP DSLRs - I cannot compare to D7000, but to K5 and here I would clearly prefer the E5 and Oly glass.
    Peter - writing off the K5 with it's fantastic dynamic range and high ISO on the basis of a week with the camera with a $100 kit lens is not reasonable.

    Mind you - I completely agree with you and Jorgen about the lovely Olympus lenses - I just don't understand why the E5 (which is clearly a fine camera) has to be as big as full frame cameras like the D700 and the Sony A900.

    Just this guy you know

  12. #12
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

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

    Interesting comments from all here. This is probably the time to sit on the fence for a few months. I would be surprised if we don't see professional EVIL cameras from Olympus as well as Nikon this year. Maybe even an FX camera in the D7000 body. Compact seems to be the trend now, and I'm all for that. Lenses are a different matter of course, so maybe a combination of m4/3 and Nikon FX is the solution. In that case, I have enough lenses to last a lifetime (or at least a few more months ).

    I'll do some comparisons in the morning with regards to detail rendering.

  13. #13
    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
    Interesting comments from all here. This is probably the time to sit on the fence for a few months. I would be surprised if we don't see professional EVIL cameras from Olympus as well as Nikon this year. Maybe even an FX camera in the D7000 body. Compact seems to be the trend now, and I'm all for that. Lenses are a different matter of course, so maybe a combination of m4/3 and Nikon FX is the solution. In that case, I have enough lenses to last a lifetime (or at least a few more months ).

    I'll do some comparisons in the morning with regards to detail rendering.
    I think you're probably right to wait - looking at rumours about the A77, it certainly looks worth waiting for (not sure how compact it'll be though).

    Just this guy you know

  14. #14
    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
    Peter - writing off the K5 with it's fantastic dynamic range and high ISO on the basis of a week with the camera with a $100 kit lens is not reasonable.

    Mind you - I completely agree with you and Jorgen about the lovely Olympus lenses - I just don't understand why the E5 (which is clearly a fine camera) has to be as big as full frame cameras like the D700 and the Sony A900.
    With the right lenses the K5 may be really good. But I had also camera issues, especially I did not like the unreliable AF. It was very much like the AF in my E3. Now the E5 is definitely a big step forward with AF performance.

    Having shot with both the D700 and E5 today the equal size of both just is irritating, especially if you think that the 43 chip is just half the size of the FF chip. While it is nice to have lenses with 2.0 opening, the weight is a different thing. Anyway wonderful lenses - sigh ....

  15. #15
    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
    Interesting comments from all here. This is probably the time to sit on the fence for a few months. I would be surprised if we don't see professional EVIL cameras from Olympus as well as Nikon this year. Maybe even an FX camera in the D7000 body. Compact seems to be the trend now, and I'm all for that. Lenses are a different matter of course, so maybe a combination of m4/3 and Nikon FX is the solution. In that case, I have enough lenses to last a lifetime (or at least a few more months ).

    I'll do some comparisons in the morning with regards to detail rendering.
    An FX sensor in a D7000 size camera would be lovely and I think even doable!

    The lesson learned today is that for a DSLR I should no longer try to go back to something less than FF. The FF sensor size is definitely superior to any APSC or 43 sensor, no matter which lenses you put in front of the smaller sensor cameras.

    For someone mainly working below ISO800 the E5 could really be the best choice. But as soon as you go above ISO 800 the sensor size and its limitations show clearly up. There can be arguments around that, end of the day this is clearly to be seen - at least in direct comparisons.

    BTW - coming back to dpreview and tests I really do not understand that hey cannot perform such direct comparison tests. This would be really helpful, much more than the tests and reviews they are wasting their time.

    WRT next FF Nikon - there are rumors that a D700 successor should be launched this year, some even say already in the next few months. Which would make sense, as the D700 is now 3 years on the market. So waiting is maybe the right thing to do.

    And also a M43 Olympus pro body is rumored, which would hopefully come with a GH2 like sensor. This sensor performs definitely better WRT higher resolution and better high ISO performance and better dynamic range than the sensor in the E5. Combine that with the latest Olympus True Picture processing and it should be a stellar thing!

  16. #16
    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
    With the right lenses the K5 may be really good. But I had also camera issues, especially I did not like the unreliable AF. It was very much like the AF in my E3. Now the E5 is definitely a big step forward with AF performance.
    Well - the first firmware update improved things (did you have that?), and it seems there is another one on the way - but apart from testing (where I can see issues as well) I've found the AF to be very reliable in 'real life' even in low light . . . . it's a new AF module (also designed for the MF 645), and Pentax do have a history of getting these things right.

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    The lesson learned today is that for a DSLR I should no longer try to go back to something less than FF. The FF sensor size is definitely superior to any APSC or 43 sensor, no matter which lenses you put in front of the smaller sensor cameras.
    I disagree so radically with this - I have / want / need a full frame 35mm camera, it has obvious advantages. But if I'm going to have a decent small dSLR, then it can't be full frame, because of the lenses - even if Nikon can squeeze a FF sensor into a D7000 sized body (as you say, possible I'm sure), there really isn't much point if you have to use lenses like the 24-70 and 70-200 to take advantage of the sensor.

    I think the time it's taken Nikon to update the D700, and Canon the 5DMk II indicates that camera manufacturers on the whole feel the same way.

    Added to which the high ISO from the new Sony APS-c sensor is great - really good - Jorgen's argument in favour of the E5 is quite comprehensible, but it hinges around the existence of fast (and excellent) Olympus glass (and the fact that there's nobody selling the K5 on a professional basis where he lives )

    I think the tragedy of the E5 is that Olympus have obviously done the very best they can with the AF and ergonomics, and their glass is peerless . . . . . . but they're stuck with a mediocre Panasonic sensor (even if they've done their very best with it), and they've made a camera twice as big as it needs to be - which defeats the whole original concept of 4/3. If the E5 was the size of the Pentax, with a sensor the quality of the Sony sensor in the K5, then I'd be there in a second . . . .

    Just this guy you know

  17. #17
    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 jonoslack View Post
    I disagree so radically with this - I have / want / need a full frame 35mm camera, it has obvious advantages. But if I'm going to have a decent small dSLR, then it can't be full frame, because of the lenses - even if Nikon can squeeze a FF sensor into a D7000 sized body (as you say, possible I'm sure), there really isn't much point if you have to use lenses like the 24-70 and 70-200 to take advantage of the sensor.
    True, that's the point with Nikon glass. The only way out for me so far has been to use small prime lenses, especially the Voigtlander ones, and old AI-S glass. But Nikon professional f/2.8 zooms, and even prime lenses such as the 24/1.4, are huge. I do not want to carry this, for the type of photography that I do most (travel/street).

    Maybe with the new trend towards smaller cameras, Nikon and Canon will find it interesting commercially to develop smaller lenses, with slightly less wide apertures. I find the compromise Olympus used with the 14-54 and 11-22, which are f/2.8-3.5 and not strictly f/2.8, was quite smart.
    -- Bernard

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    261
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    For travel/street photography, there's no need to shoot full frame. A D7000 or K5 is more than up to the task. In the case of Nikon, the new 35/1.8 or 50/1.4 G lenses are compact, very well priced and perform exceptionally well (fast focus, high IQ).

    I shot the Oly 14-54 extensively with my E1 and it's a top lens. But no better than the Nikon 18-70 which offers the same zoom range and effective aperture range (f3.5-4.5 on Nikon is pretty much equivalent to f2.8-3.5 on Oly given Nikon's larger APS sensor).


    Quote Originally Posted by bcf View Post
    True, that's the point with Nikon glass. The only way out for me so far has been to use small prime lenses, especially the Voigtlander ones, and old AI-S glass. But Nikon professional f/2.8 zooms, and even prime lenses such as the 24/1.4, are huge. I do not want to carry this, for the type of photography that I do most (travel/street).

    Maybe with the new trend towards smaller cameras, Nikon and Canon will find it interesting commercially to develop smaller lenses, with slightly less wide apertures. I find the compromise Olympus used with the 14-54 and 11-22, which are f/2.8-3.5 and not strictly f/2.8, was quite smart.

  19. #19
    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 lambert View Post
    For travel/street photography, there's no need to shoot full frame.
    Well I disagree, not for the format itself actually, but for 2 consequences of the format: the quality of the viewfinder, and the ability to reach a better quality at high ISO than with an APS or 4/3 sensor.
    -- Bernard

  20. #20
    Ronan
    Guest

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

    No, the E-5 does not handle low light better than the D7000...

    And did someone replace their D300/s with a D7000???

    BTW the way you shoot makes a huge difference with noise control... Simply boosting the ISO to absurd numbers... well yeah (this isn't directed at anyone in general, maybe expect all the people to come to me for advice...).

    Quote Originally Posted by bcf View Post
    Well I disagree, not for the format itself actually, but for 2 consequences of the format: the quality of the viewfinder, and the ability to reach a better quality at high ISO than with an APS or 4/3 sensor.
    100% Agree.

    Contrary to what some people think... FF isn't some-kind of super-corporation scheme to take more money from us... It actually does work...

    Quote Originally Posted by bcf View Post
    Maybe with the new trend towards smaller cameras, Nikon and Canon will find it interesting commercially to develop smaller lenses, with slightly less wide apertures. I find the compromise Olympus used with the 14-54 and 11-22, which are f/2.8-3.5 and not strictly f/2.8, was quite smart.
    DSLR's are plenty small enough. Take a look at the amateur section, they are small! Also big glass is big... for a reason

    Nikon & Canon don't make professional DSLR's big for fun... Its because of whats inside, for protection and comfort.

    But Nikon is listening, they have a new line of mirror-less interchangeable lens cameras coming out 'soon'. The nickname for it is EVIL, already plenty of patents and information available, just no release date yet. But hey, Nikon's President said 'soon' so...

  21. #21
    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
    Well - the first firmware update improved things (did you have that?), and it seems there is another one on the way - but apart from testing (where I can see issues as well) I've found the AF to be very reliable in 'real life' even in low light . . . . it's a new AF module (also designed for the MF 645), and Pentax do have a history of getting these things right.



    I disagree so radically with this - I have / want / need a full frame 35mm camera, it has obvious advantages. But if I'm going to have a decent small dSLR, then it can't be full frame, because of the lenses - even if Nikon can squeeze a FF sensor into a D7000 sized body (as you say, possible I'm sure), there really isn't much point if you have to use lenses like the 24-70 and 70-200 to take advantage of the sensor.

    I think the time it's taken Nikon to update the D700, and Canon the 5DMk II indicates that camera manufacturers on the whole feel the same way.

    Added to which the high ISO from the new Sony APS-c sensor is great - really good - Jorgen's argument in favour of the E5 is quite comprehensible, but it hinges around the existence of fast (and excellent) Olympus glass (and the fact that there's nobody selling the K5 on a professional basis where he lives )

    I think the tragedy of the E5 is that Olympus have obviously done the very best they can with the AF and ergonomics, and their glass is peerless . . . . . . but they're stuck with a mediocre Panasonic sensor (even if they've done their very best with it), and they've made a camera twice as big as it needs to be - which defeats the whole original concept of 4/3. If the E5 was the size of the Pentax, with a sensor the quality of the Sony sensor in the K5, then I'd be there in a second . . . .
    First, I had the FW update of the K5, but even with that it did not work for me.

    Second - as you can see from all what I am trying, I really also want a smaller DSLR with maybe APSC sensor size and excellent but smaller lenses. Unfortunately I did not find this so far. It is definitely not Canon (as I rule this company out because I simply do not like their approach), it is not Nikon, as they might have the right camera (D7000) but not the right lenses, it is not Pentax as I had the issues we discussed in length and - my last hope - it is also not Olympus with their E5, because the sensor is not the GH2 sensor (this would have totally solved the sensor issue) and they made the mistake to build these huge Pro Grade lenses and a Pro Grade camera body like the E5.

    I fully agree, if there would be an E5 in an E1 body with the GH2 sensor and similar excellent image processing as in the E5 plus the same Pro grade lenses like the 2/14-35 and 35-100 only in 2.8, then this would be the dream combination!

    I do not agree that the K5 AF was near as good as the AF in the E%. This one is now significantly better! But to put that in relation with what is possible, the D700 AF simply tops that by far, especially in low light and in heavy backlight.

  22. #22
    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 not agree that the K5 AF was near as good as the AF in the E%. This one is now significantly better! But to put that in relation with what is possible, the D700 AF simply tops that by far, especially in low light and in heavy backlight.
    Well, Pentax have acknowledged an issue, and said that they'll fix it (relating explicitly to low light). On the other hand, maybe you had a faulty camera? I'm finding the AF to be pretty good (even CAF with fast subjects is pretty good).

    Not for a minute suggesting you should go back to Pentax, but if the only problem was the AF, then I'd suggest you wait and see what they come up with. Remember, this is a completely new AF system - it usually takes a little while to come up with the goods. It fits the bill in so many other ways . . . . mind you, so does the Nikon 7000 . . . . and you already have the glass (still not quite sure why you're against it).

    Comparing it with the D700 is fine - but not if you want a small camera!

    Of course, (relating to other posts), it is possible to have a nice small full frame camera, with the best possible lenses (AF isn't so good though) . . .. . remember the M9?

    Just this guy you know

  23. #23
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

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

    Sunday today, so I felt inclined to waste some time doing screen captures from dpr. Here are files processed from RAW. I omitted the K-5. It would have been be the winner anyway, and I don't need to see any test shots to prove that. No full frame here, since the D3s only comes up with ISO200. Cameras with IBIS at ISO1600, those without at 3200. I could have given the E-5 an extra stop for the f/2.0 lenses, but chose to be conservative:








  24. #24
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

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

    Then the out-of-camera jpegs. I changed the G2 for the D3s here.












    Here, I have reduced the D7000 to ISO1600:



    And here I have included the K-5 as well:


  25. #25
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

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

    The lenses used obviously comes into play here as well. In that area, it's difficult to beat Olympus (the 50/2.0), and that is probably also part of the reason for the E-5's superb rendering of detail. But there's another side of that question as well: While Olympus makes three superb, professional quality standard zooms (14-54/2.8-3.5, 12-60/2.8-4.0 and 14-35/2.0), Nikon only makes one, the 17-55/2.8, which is a beast, Pentax also makes one, the 16-50/2.8, which seems to be the weakest part of their pro line-up while Sony has none for the crop sensor. Although I've never fallen in love with standard zooms, they are very important for bread-and-butter work. I prefer them to be small, lightweight and sharp.

    One can obviously buy third party lenses, but my experiences with the Tamron are going downhill.

  26. #26
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

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

    I became curious, so here are some that include the K-5 and the 7D as well:







    And since I do shoot in daylight now and then as well, here are two at ISO100:





    Please be aware that they seem to have changed the watch. The A55, 7D and D3s shows the old one with a black line in the hour markings and different hands that gives more shadow contrast.

    Another interesting fact: The RAW files of the E-5 are around half the size of the files from the other cameras. With double backups, that's a saving of $3-500 per year just in hard-disks.

  27. #27
    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.

    I have made this thought many times...smaller sensor means more DOF means you shoot wider open for same DOF so you can use one stop lower ISO.
    This works as long as we talk about zooms because Oly offers some nice and (faster) zooms than available for ff.
    As soon as you come to primes its a different story and the selection for 4/3 gets pretty much limited. No real fast portrait lens for example, and for same speed and DOF flexibility like a 50/1.4 you would need a 25/1.0 lens.

    The next thing is the question what do you gain? The f2.0 zooms are not really smaller nor lighter than equivalent the f2.8 ff zooms.

    On the other side, due to sensor size you have high pixel density which will limit the 4/3 sensor to less MP than what would be possible on a ff frame sensor (if the glass resolution is comparable).

    So for me it wouldnt be that much about 1 or 2 steps difference in high ISO quality, but the question would be if 12MP is enough for the prit sizes intended and also if the lenses one wants are offered.

    If one is a zoom guy-Oly seems to offer very nice lenses, for prime guys the selection gets limited IMO.

  28. #28
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

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

    I have found that 12MP is enough for all I do. Another side of this is that there are few lenses that can resolve more than that on a crop camera. When looking at the low ISO samples from dpr, the 12MP E-3 shows considerably more detail than the 18MP 7D. That is probably a combination of lens and filtering, but there isn't really much point in an 18MP camera if the lenses can't render that much.

    This is of course what Olympus has been pondering all the time, without getting much response, but it seems to be true: 12MP and top notch lenses will render more detail than 18MP and lenses that were designed for full frame.

    When it comes to DOF, it's very much a question of taste. I mostly shoot portraits at f/2.8-4.0 on full frame. That means that the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 will do the job very nicely when used on a 4/3 camera.

  29. #29
    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
    I have found that 12MP is enough for all I do. Another side of this is that there are few lenses that can resolve more than that on a crop camera. When looking at the low ISO samples from dpr, the 12MP E-3 shows considerably more detail than the 18MP 7D. That is probably a combination of lens and filtering, but there isn't really much point in an 18MP camera if the lenses can't render that much.

    This is of course what Olympus has been pondering all the time, without getting much response, but it seems to be true: 12MP and top notch lenses will render more detail than 18MP and lenses that were designed for full frame.

    When it comes to DOF, it's very much a question of taste. I mostly shoot portraits at f/2.8-4.0 on full frame. That means that the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 will do the job very nicely when used on a 4/3 camera.
    Jürgen,
    thats exactly what I mean, the smaller the sensor the earlier max. MP will be limited by the resolution of lenses (assuming we are talking about glass with comparable resolution).
    I have to agree so that one can do a lot with a good 12MP image.

  30. #30
    Member marlof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    188
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    Please be aware that they seem to have changed the watch. The A55, 7D and D3s shows the old one with a black line in the hour markings and different hands that gives more shadow contrast.
    I think it's the same, but the light causes some shadowplay on those images. In the other images, without the black lines, you can also see difference in detail. The hour markings and the hands are probably sharply curved. When they're lit straight on, or harshly, the shimmering silver color doesn't show much detail. In other light, you can see where the shadow is falling. Or maybe some sensors deal better with highlight detail, I don't know.

  31. #31
    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.

    @ Jorgen

    the last samples you copied including the K5 just show very nicely what were also my findings with the K5. I found it at higher ISO having less noise (ISO 1600 and higher) but also less details. The E5 in my opinion - even showing already substantial noise, has much better detail The 7D for me comes on place 3 and the D7000 is the clear looser.

    I think this all relates very well to the quality of lenses. And WRT lenses the Olympus is the clear winner, while the Pentax and Canon are somewhere in the middle and the Nikon with the lens tested here is the obvious looser!

  32. #32
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

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

    Quote Originally Posted by marlof View Post
    I think it's the same, but the light causes some shadowplay on those images. In the other images, without the black lines, you can also see difference in detail. The hour markings and the hands are probably sharply curved. When they're lit straight on, or harshly, the shimmering silver color doesn't show much detail. In other light, you can see where the shadow is falling. Or maybe some sensors deal better with highlight detail, I don't know.
    Not the same. You see it clearly if you compare the ISO100 shots by the 7D and the E-5. The E-5 shows more detail everywhere, still the black lines are gone. You can also see that the "counterweight" on the seconds hand has a different shape.

    The glass also has a different shape. It's more rounded in the new version.

  33. #33
    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.

    I had another day of shooting the E5. Today I limited a lot of my shots to ISO200 and Vivid setting. In combination with the 35-100 and 12-60 the results are stunning! Especially when you start using selective light metering, manual focus fine adjust etc. Once setup that way, the E5 performs flawlessly in good to medium light (even darker forest).

    I also tested again the noise from 200 - 6400. I would say till ISO 800 there is no big issue with noise, if exposed correctly! At 1600 and even 3200 noise is clearly there, but I could live with it. Even up till ISO 5000 noise is quite acceptable. But at 6400 the results are kind of useless - at least for me. Maybe a future FW update might bring improvements here.

    After these 4 days of shooting and even taking into account the higher noise issues I must say I do not like to return the E5 and especially these 2 lenses. While I can clearly proof that the D700 performs better under low light, I must say I am still considering if I should not switch to the E5. Because my main area of use would be in the range between 200 - 1600 and given the fast zooms (2.0) there can be great results achieved up till ISO 3200 comparable from a D700 - at least for me. BUT with lower ISO settings the E5 clearly outperforms the D700 WRT IQ in each and every area.

    So hard decision still. If I only would know what Olympus is going to bring as next Pro DSLR????? The lenses are stellar without any doubt!

  34. #34
    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.

    The only area wher I see clearly more detail from the E-5 is in the Martini logo on the bottle ("suppliers of Martini vermouth"). Elsewhere, it's either a wash or in favour of the D7000. Given that I am comparing the D7000 at ISO 1600 with the E-5 at 800, and that the E-5 is bigger than the D7000, as big as a D700, I fail to see the advantage...

    If the E-5 was clearly smaller, I could be interested. But at this size, I fail to see the point. And the f/2 4/3 zooms are as big as their full-frame f/2.8 Nikon counterparts.
    -- Bernard

  35. #35
    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
    the last samples you copied including the K5 just show very nicely what were also my findings with the K5. I found it at higher ISO having less noise (ISO 1600 and higher) but also less details.
    But you only had the kit lens with the K5 Peter, and we all agree that's a dog - that 100 ISO picture looks oof to me (maybe that bears out your focusing problem!).

    all the best

    Just this guy you know

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by bcf View Post
    The only area wher I see clearly more detail from the E-5 is in the Martini logo on the bottle ("suppliers of Martini vermouth"). Elsewhere, it's either a wash or in favour of the D7000. Given that I am comparing the D7000 at ISO 1600 with the E-5 at 800, and that the E-5 is bigger than the D7000, as big as a D700, I fail to see the advantage...

    If the E-5 was clearly smaller, I could be interested. But at this size, I fail to see the point. And the f/2 4/3 zooms are as big as their full-frame f/2.8 Nikon counterparts.
    HI Bernard - you hit it on the head for me. The E5 is lovely, and clearly really well thought out - but the trouble with those crops is that, of course, the point of focus is slightly different for each camera for each shot - trying to compare critical amounts of detail seems dangerous.

    But the real issue is that the E5 with an F2 zoom is as big as a D700 with an f2.8 zoom. . . . . in fact, it's also pretty much the same size as the Sony A900 with the Zeiss 24-75 . . . . . . .

    Just this guy you know

  37. #37
    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

    This is of course what Olympus has been pondering all the time, without getting much response, but it seems to be true: 12MP and top notch lenses will render more detail than 18MP and lenses that were designed for full frame.
    HI Jorgen
    I think it is true . . . . but it isn't the whole truth. Added to which, if you have a noisy 18mp image you can downsize it to a much less noisy 12mp image (without losing much detail). This is something I discovered when printing from a D700 and a Sony A900 - that the obvious difference in noise at 100% pixel peeping disappeared if you downsized the Sony file.

    Basically, you can do your own 'pixel binning' to create a better file at lower resolution . . . if you start off with more resolution.

    Mind you, if you want the detail, then just take away the AA filter!

    Just this guy you know

  38. #38
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

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

    Quote Originally Posted by bcf View Post
    The only area wher I see clearly more detail from the E-5 is in the Martini logo on the bottle ("suppliers of Martini vermouth"). Elsewhere, it's either a wash or in favour of the D7000. Given that I am comparing the D7000 at ISO 1600 with the E-5 at 800, and that the E-5 is bigger than the D7000, as big as a D700, I fail to see the advantage...

    If the E-5 was clearly smaller, I could be interested. But at this size, I fail to see the point. And the f/2 4/3 zooms are as big as their full-frame f/2.8 Nikon counterparts.
    At high ISO, the E-5 doesn't show more detail when there's only one stop difference, but if you mount the 17-55 on the D7000 and the 14-35 on the E-5, the E-5 has a lens that is one stop faster. In addition, the E-5 has IBIS, which will gives another 1-3 stops. Then we are talking ISO 800 or even 400 compared to 3200. At ISO100, the differences are so dramatic that there isn't really any competition. The difference is probably partly in the lens, but since cameras work badly without lenses, it's still a valid comparison.

    The most interesting part is still that the difference in MP count seems to evaporate completely, which is food for thought.

    I agree that the fast standard zooms don't give 4/3 any size advantage, but mount a telephoto lens, like a 70-300 or a Bigma, and you have 30% more reach. Another good example would be the Zuiko 150/2 vs. the Nikkor 200/2. While the cameras would have exactly the same reach (300mm eqv.), the Zuiko is smaller, lighter and much cheaper. You could choose to compare with the Nikkor 180/2.8 instead, but then you lose one stop and VR and get less reach.

  39. #39
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    HI Bernard - you hit it on the head for me. The E5 is lovely, and clearly really well thought out - but the trouble with those crops is that, of course, the point of focus is slightly different for each camera for each shot - trying to compare critical amounts of detail seems dangerous.

    But the real issue is that the E5 with an F2 zoom is as big as a D700 with an f2.8 zoom. . . . . in fact, it's also pretty much the same size as the Sony A900 with the Zeiss 24-75 . . . . . . .
    Jono,
    The E-5 is stopped down to f/6.3 and the cameras wioth APS-C sensor to f/9.0 on 50mm lenses. I would be very surprised if they missed focus with that much DOF. I don't particularly like dpr, but they are very meticulous when it comes to details like that. They know that they'll get a lot of pepper if they aren't.

  40. #40
    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
    Jono,
    The E-5 is stopped down to f/6.3 and the cameras wioth APS-C sensor to f/9.0 on 50mm lenses. I would be very surprised if they missed focus with that much DOF. I don't particularly like dpr, but they are very meticulous when it comes to details like that. They know that they'll get a lot of pepper if they aren't.
    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?


    -- Bernard

  41. #41
    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 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?
    Well, something clearly is . . . . . . . but hang on!

    This is all about angels dancing on the heads of pins. Even if you assume that the dpreview shots are perfect . . . we're still only talking about one lens in one set of lighting at one distance. . . . . . and we're pixel peeping at 100%.

    Surely this has very little to do with real life shooting.

    I think the truth is that all these cameras will do a grand job - from the E5 to the 7D and everything inbetween. Some will be better with one lens in a certain set of circumstances, and others in others.

    For me? I want small and weatherproof, so the K5 is fairly obvious - others have other priorities and so other cameras will be the right answer - Peter has lots of Nikon Glass, so the D7000 is obvious Jorgen wants those Zuiko lenses (and who can criticise that).

    Each camera has it's good and bad points . . . . but I'm not sure that one can gather too much from those 100% crops at dpreview, and it seems to me that Bernard's observation rather proves the point.

    I'm off to bed . . . have a good week everyone!

    Just this guy you know

  42. #42
    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.

    You are right Jono.

    I too want something small - but I'm not sure the K-5 would be it. If I can carry a K-5, why not a D700 with small primes?

    The m43 cameras could be a solution.

    For now, I think I'll try my Zuiko (OM) glass on a D700 -and I'll know if I was right to keep my 21/3.5 all these years, or if the Voig 20/3.5 is just as good after all
    -- Bernard

  43. #43
    boyzo
    Guest

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

    All this comparison seems pointless to me ...

    With low ISO its all about the Photographers skill and out put would equal APS-C

    I you have a collection of HG or SHG Zuiko then the E-5 is more than up to it.

    MAny here seem to target very High ISO and some Holy grail.

    There was a time when ASA 400 film was big deal and also not very good

    Look at the street shots of Jakie Onassis by Galela in the 70's there awful full of grain and not that sharp

    Go out and take some Bloody pictures and stop the High ISO idiosy

  44. #44
    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 bcf View Post
    You are right Jono.

    I too want something small - but I'm not sure the K-5 would be it. If I can carry a K-5, why not a D700 with small primes?

    The m43 cameras could be a solution.

    For now, I think I'll try my Zuiko (OM) glass on a D700 -and I'll know if I was right to keep my 21/3.5 all these years, or if the Voig 20/3.5 is just as good after all
    HI Bernard
    Well, I quite agree with you - our requirements are simply different. If I want something small with primes, then it's the M9 - my use for the K5 is something small, weathersealed and rugged, with a small zoom (18-135) and a couple of nice macros.

    it's different for all of us

    Boyzo
    I understand what you say about high ISO . . . and I've always felt the same way, but now that I can suddenly shoot at 6400 ISO and print to A3 size without much penalty . . . . it's kindof attractive!

    Just this guy you know

  45. #45
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

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

    You are right Jono, these are all great cameras, and the points handed out by dpr become rather irrelevant when individual needs, wants and lusts are included in the quotation. One of the reasons why I started this thread was maybe because I find the E-5 to correspond well with my needs, even if it's too big and bulky. When I started to check the samples at dpr, to see how much worse it is than the competition, I found that in some respects, and particularly when the lenses are considered, it's actually better.

    When image quality, native lenses, the use of legacy lenses, compatibility with the GH1 (which I have, and which would be used for travel and as a backup camera), IBIS, weather sealing, articulated LCD etc. are added together, the E-5 as a package for me is actually very reasonably priced, and will deliver outstanding photos under the circumstances that is the most important to me, which is anywhere, anytime, regardless of weather and mostly at ISOs from 800 and downwards.

    High ISO and limited DR is pulled out of the hat every time the 4/3 cameras are discussed, but to tell the truth, even without ultrafast lenses and IBIS, the E-5 is a better performer at high ISO than any camera that I have ever owned. Still, I have taken around 150,000 photos the last 5 years, and at least a couple of them seem to have some artistic value.

    But that's me of course. Others may have different needs, and if my needs were mainly photos in the dark, a D700 or a K5 would probably be better options. If I could afford it, I would probably buy the K5 and the Limiteds, all of them, just because I like them. But I can't. And who knows? Maybe I end up with a D700 after all. Right now, I think I'll spend some of my savings on breakfast

    Edit: For some kinds of photography, a tripod has proved indispensable, also when I travel. Great high ISO doesn't always cut it. I've found this great little carbon fiber tripod that is around 40cm folded, weighs in at around a kilogram including an excellent ballhead with all the adjustments you can dream of. It's made by a Chinese company called Sirui and is surprisingly rigid. It's a little low even when extended, of course, but since real cameras are equiped with an articulated LCD, that isn't much of a problem either. Just in case somebody else have similar needs.

    And it does fit on the inside of a moderately size camera bag. No more tripod that threatens to kill fellow passengers on public transport or in big crowds.
    Last edited by Jorgen Udvang; 6th February 2011 at 16:32.

  46. #46
    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
    But you only had the kit lens with the K5 Peter, and we all agree that's a dog - that 100 ISO picture looks oof to me (maybe that bears out your focusing problem!).

    all the best
    Jono,

    you are unfortunately, I also had the DA70, a great lens, but far from satisfying me on the K5 - several reasons, I do not want to discuss again.

    The K5 could have been a great camera for me if all had worked as specified or should have, but unfortunately was not. I had it also not just for a week only, I had it for almost 4 weeks. And I did a lot of shooting. But whenever I end up with a camera more testing around than taking great images this is already a bad sign. In the case of the K5 it unfortunately was, because I would have loved to get friends with it!
    Last edited by ptomsu; 6th February 2011 at 22:25.

  47. #47
    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
    Peter has lots of Nikon Glass, so the D7000 is obvious Jorgen wants those Zuiko lenses (and who can criticise that).
    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

  48. #48
    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
    You are right Jono, these are all great cameras, and the points handed out by dpr become rather irrelevant when individual needs, wants and lusts are included in the quotation. One of the reasons why I started this thread was maybe because I find the E-5 to correspond well with my needs, even if it's too big and bulky. When I started to check the samples at dpr, to see how much worse it is than the competition, I found that in some respects, and particularly when the lenses are considered, it's actually better.

    When image quality, native lenses, the use of legacy lenses, compatibility with the GH1 (which I have, and which would be used for travel and as a backup camera), IBIS, weather sealing, articulated LCD etc. are added together, the E-5 as a package for me is actually very reasonably priced, and will deliver outstanding photos under the circumstances that is the most important to me, which is anywhere, anytime, regardless of weather and mostly at ISOs from 800 and downwards.

    High ISO and limited DR is pulled out of the hat every time the 4/3 cameras are discussed, but to tell the truth, even without ultrafast lenses and IBIS, the E-5 is a better performer at high ISO than any camera that I have ever owned. Still, I have taken around 150,000 photos the last 5 years, and at least a couple of them seem to have some artistic value.

    But that's me of course. Others may have different needs, and if my needs were mainly photos in the dark, a D700 or a K5 would probably be better options. If I could afford it, I would probably buy the K5 and the Limiteds, all of them, just because I like them. But I can't. And who knows? Maybe I end up with a D700 after all. Right now, I think I'll spend some of my savings on breakfast

    Edit: For some kinds of photography, a tripod has proved indispensable, also when I travel. Great high ISO doesn't always cut it. I've found this great little carbon fiber tripod that is around 40cm folded, weighs in at around a kilogram including an excellent ballhead with all the adjustments you can dream of. It's made by a Chinese company called Sirui and is surprisingly rigid. It's a little low even when extended, of course, but since real cameras are equiped with an articulated LCD, that isn't much of a problem either. Just in case somebody else have similar needs.

    And it does fit on the inside of a moderately size camera bag. No more tripod that threatens to kill fellow passengers on public transport or in big crowds.
    Have you tried the E5 yourself? If not please do so. After that I think you will have made your final decision for the E5, if you not already have done so. I spent the last weekend and some other days before shooting the E5 and while not only providing stellar results, I also started to love photography again, as the E5 animated me to do things again, I have not doen since years with all my Sony's, Canon's and Nikon's. And while the IQ in some cases ( as we all know and discussed in length) might be better from other cameras and combinations, the E5 has just the bit of extra in most other cases. Partly also because of the stellar Zuiko glass.

    Go for it and try it if you can for some days. You will be more than satisfied

  49. #49
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

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

    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.

  50. #50
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    Have you tried the E5 yourself? If not please do so. After that I think you will have made your final decision for the E5, if you not already have done so. I spent the last weekend and some other days before shooting the E5 and while not only providing stellar results, I also started to love photography again, as the E5 animated me to do things again, I have not doen since years with all my Sony's, Canon's and Nikon's. And while the IQ in some cases ( as we all know and discussed in length) might be better from other cameras and combinations, the E5 has just the bit of extra in most other cases. Partly also because of the stellar Zuiko glass.

    Go for it and try it if you can for some days. You will be more than satisfied
    The E-5 isn't yet available here, but I have borrowed the E-3 of a friend of mine for a few days. I like it a lot, and much more than I would have thought. Since the E-5 is more or less the same body, I have no problems buying the E-5 based on what I know already. The question is if I will sell all or some of my Nikon gear to finance it or keep it for now and rob a couple of banks

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
  •