keep D600 or swap to OMD EM5
- Thread starter J1nxy
- Start date
Sorry, even 5 years was ambitiously low. The sensor in the original 5D has a stop advantage over the EM-5 and that is 8 years older in ISO performance. Like I said the resolving power will never catch up regardless of lens quality unless someone breaks diffraction laws somehow.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Ca...nd2)/Olympus/(appareil3)/176|0/(brand3)/Canon
Paying the same amount of money as a D600 system for performance that's beaten by decade old cameras doesn't sit well with me.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Ca...nd2)/Olympus/(appareil3)/176|0/(brand3)/Canon
Paying the same amount of money as a D600 system for performance that's beaten by decade old cameras doesn't sit well with me.
But I'm not paying the same amount? The kit for the D600 is 1800 the kit for the OMD is 950 so is half the price, and also includes the 45mm F1.8 lens and a spare battery.
Ok I get it won't have the same ISO performance, or resolving power as the D600 but then does it have the same IBIS system as the OMD or is it as small? Its swings and roundabout.
If I'm not printing building size prints am I likely to notice the difference in image quality for the types of photos I want to print?
Ok I get it won't have the same ISO performance, or resolving power as the D600 but then does it have the same IBIS system as the OMD or is it as small? Its swings and roundabout.
If I'm not printing building size prints am I likely to notice the difference in image quality for the types of photos I want to print?
Yes, unless you're blind. I've noticed the difference between my D5000 prints and my 5D prints at 12"*8". In addition to raw IQ obviously you'll notice the difference in depth of field control and while obviously nobody should shoot wide open all the time, there are plenty of situations which call for it where the OMD will limit you.
As for IBIS. Usually I'd say that IS is a great feature to have and complain about Canikon not putting it in their sensors. But the ISO performance alone of a DSLR system renders the IBIS in m4/3s moot unless you're planning to shoot video seriously (which you should use a stabilising rig for generally) or moderately long exposures (which you should still use a tripod for).
Whilst, no one is suggesting that smaller sensors are better.
I would still get the m4/3 setup which is excellent for many occasions. I have a GF1 which you can easily take into places where DSLRs are no no, the size is ideal for hoildays as well.
For more serious stuff which you want to print, I would keep the d600 setup
Are you in a position to have two setups? I would go for something smaller than the OMD like the fuji x100 or GF series.
I find that works for me, If I'm in a serious mood, I will shoot with my 1d or perhaps with my film cameras.
I would still get the m4/3 setup which is excellent for many occasions. I have a GF1 which you can easily take into places where DSLRs are no no, the size is ideal for hoildays as well.
For more serious stuff which you want to print, I would keep the d600 setup
Are you in a position to have two setups? I would go for something smaller than the OMD like the fuji x100 or GF series.
I find that works for me, If I'm in a serious mood, I will shoot with my 1d or perhaps with my film cameras.
Well I ordered the OMD to have a play with and it arrived today and my mate Boris decided to give me a quick hand testing it. These are 4 pictures taken with the D600 and the OMD where I've tried to use the same focus point and focal length to give a bit of a comparison.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/p3j9zubxd58rsch/D600-1.JPG
https://www.dropbox.com/s/eh192n4zllb6khg/OMD-1.JPG
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3l8sh2n8f1wiq1y/D600-2.JPG
https://www.dropbox.com/s/gc29143xpt7r0y9/OMD-2.JPG
They are all shot as fine JPG and taken straight from the camera with no PP or anything applied.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/p3j9zubxd58rsch/D600-1.JPG
https://www.dropbox.com/s/eh192n4zllb6khg/OMD-1.JPG
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3l8sh2n8f1wiq1y/D600-2.JPG
https://www.dropbox.com/s/gc29143xpt7r0y9/OMD-2.JPG
They are all shot as fine JPG and taken straight from the camera with no PP or anything applied.
The same sensor is available in the lowest end model available for £300, this sensors provides well over 1 stop additional dynamic range than the likes of the canon 5d/60d/7d which is more important to many people than a smaller difference in high ISO performance in the FF cameras. Srpaingly the epm2 actually ouerforms the larger sensors end canon camera like 60d/7d in the high ISO performance.
You also keep harping on about diffraction limits but I don't think you understand. Yes, the smaller sensor will hit diffraction issues at a smaller f-number but the DoF is bigger for equivalent f-numbers by the exact same proportion. You just have to get used to thinking that f/8 is a fully stopped down lens.
When making exceptionally large prints the larger sensor will make a difference but for things up to 11x14" prints it is probably unobserable. Differences in lens acuity and technique will have a far bigger impact. E.g., on a camera like a d800e you need to be on a very solid tripod to get the full potential, just the fact that you are hand holding the camera will limit you to about 20mp
But it is kind of irrelevant because you don't buy a very small camera to make 40x60" poster prints. If print sizes up to 11x14" come out crisp then what tends to be more important are DR and/or high ISO depending on what you shoot.
Not only do the new m43 camera offer better IQ, any mirrorless system that uses an APS-c sensor will get stuck with the main issue that the lenses still have to be too big to be truely portable.
The canon 100d would be a great bet if you only wanted some relatively normal length lenses, the likes of the 40mm pancake.
Thats where all the other mirrorless systems fall down, the 45-175 lens for something with a 35mm equivalent length of 90-350 is tiny, and its none extending as well.
So? You could use a 70-200 on a D600 or D800 and just crop in and get the same performance.
A lens can only be so sharp, and there don't exist any lenses sharp enough to make up for the difference between APS-C and full frame, let alone the difference between micro 4/3s and full frame.
I said it at the start and I'll say it again. If you want to go lighter/smaller then go with a system like the X-E1, if you want to go smaller still then an X120. No point going to micro 4/3s as there are just way too many compromises.
Just my 2 pence.
A lens can only be so sharp, and there don't exist any lenses sharp enough to make up for the difference between APS-C and full frame, let alone the difference between micro 4/3s and full frame.
I said it at the start and I'll say it again. If you want to go lighter/smaller then go with a system like the X-E1, if you want to go smaller still then an X120. No point going to micro 4/3s as there are just way too many compromises.
Just my 2 pence.
Sorry who are you replying to with that top comment about the 70-200??
And as I've said the APS-C mirrorless cameras suffer from the need to have a large lens, which negates almost entirely the reduction in body size. The X-E1 and XPro also suffer from poor AF speed, which given what I'm try to take pictures of is a big put off. To be honest having played a bit today the OMD is pretty much equal too if not better at static AF than the D600 which is quite surprising.
Have I said there isn't any draw backs? The image quality is better on the D600 and its noticeable when you use 1:1 mapping on a decent res monitor. The ISO performance is also better, but then having to lug enormous, heavy pieces of glass around is also not exactly an advantage for some people, including me.
Its a case of making a compromise do I stick with the ultimate image quality of the D600 and be put of from taking the camera with me, or do I switch a smaller system that I'm happy to carry around and accept that the image quality won't be as good. From what I can see the reduction in ultimate image quality is there but not to the extreme sense that you'd like us to believe. I suspect from your comments you don't and have never owned one of the M4/3 system cameras that use the modern sensors.
And I still don't understand who or what you were replying to with your 70-200 comment?
I've already said that 90% of the hassle of taking a camera is that you have to take something. Whether that's 800g or 1.5kg really doesn't make a blind bit of difference at all.
I'd find satisfying images a much bigger motivation for picking up the camera than "oh well at least I won't be carrying an extra 500g....
I'd find satisfying images a much bigger motivation for picking up the camera than "oh well at least I won't be carrying an extra 500g....
A 70-200 on a D600 body will give you no where near the same subject detail as a 150/175mm (300/350mm FF equivalent) lens on a m43 body, not even close.
The problem with an Xe-1 would be if you ever want any reach you are lugging around a big heavy lens again and might as well have just used a D600!
If it is a choice of 460g that fits inside my jacket pocket or 2.5Kg (emp2 + 40-150 vs a D600 + 300mm f/4.0) hanging around my neck I sure as heck no which is lighter and more comfortable for casual day trip. Not that I would want to go without the DSLR setup for when I am committed but for casual shooting, there is a clear difference.
And it is not just weight. A camera that fits inside a jacket pocket or my ski pants has clear benefits.
As I said, for someone who uses a high end DSLR seriously then there is no way you could swap to a mirrorless system, but as a lightweight camera with serious IQ they are hard to beat. Image quality that beats many current generation DSLRS in a jacket pocket sized package that weighs not much more than most serious P&S camera with far, far smaller sensors.