View Full Version : Surprise result Nikon D800vOMD E5

Ken Lister
24th September 2012, 01:19 PM
Posted today on Ephotozine- result comparison of Full Frame Nikon D800 and OMD-EM5.

I am really surprised at the conclusion that a 36mp full frame camera with four times the sensor surface area and costing more than twice as much (body only) than the 16mp OMD-EM5 produces better low light performance at high ISO settings.
I'd bet that everyone else is surprised as well.:)

I can't wait to see how the Nikon D800 compares to a 20 6mp compact!

Nothing like a level playing field eh?


24th September 2012, 02:16 PM
It's rather like comparing a 35mm film Nikon SLR to a Hasselblad!

24th September 2012, 02:17 PM
what suprised me was how well the EM-5 compared, makes me wonder of the D800 + lens is worth 4 - 6 X the price of the EM-5 + 9-18! ;)

24th September 2012, 02:28 PM
what suprised me was how well the EM-5 compared, makes me wonder of the D800 + lens is worth 4 - 6 X the price of the EM-5 + 9-18! ;)



24th September 2012, 02:54 PM
More and more, I find these comparisons have gone this way in absence of any meaningfull objective assessment.

Considering the end product of most cameras, is viewed on an iPad, HDTV or at best printed to A4, what's the point of all the excess.

Why not compare a BMW M5 with an AUDI A5 on a round trip of the M25 :rolleyes: It's much the same with the supercars being firstly limited to 155 MPH, then used in country with a 70MPH limit.

Years ago we did see an honest comparison that was done between a Digital Medium Format and a Canon G10, where the results were printed to A4 size and several top professionals were unable to tell the difference.

Perhaps the very low number of comments that are made to these "Reviews" reflects on the quality of the comparison.

24th September 2012, 05:30 PM
I just showed the images to my partner and he actually preferred the Olympus versions!

Stewart G
24th September 2012, 05:55 PM
Some of these uneven comparisons are, I think, designed to be merely traffic pumps for the hosting site. So the more controversial the better.

David Morison
25th September 2012, 06:52 AM
Well I managed to talk to the judge at a local competition in which I did quite well. A couple of my land/sea scapes, at A4 and taken with the E-M5 drew his attention for the amount of detail and he asked if they were taken with a full frame. He laughed and said I was pulling his leg when I told him they were taken with m43, I think he still doesn't believe me!

Horses for courses!


25th September 2012, 09:16 AM
In a recent Digitally Projected Image comp one of my EM-5 shots was given the highest score of the night. That's a 6ft wide projected image compared to others from 5Dmk2s, 7Ds, D3 etc

I do think that it is now fast approaching the point where, excepting those really challenging photographic situations, it almost doesn't matter what camera you use, so long as you use it correctly

25th September 2012, 10:27 AM
I'd say that review was waste of time. 1st the images were not taken with similar settings. Then accuse sensor for flare and complain high iso quality compared to 4 times bigger sensor.
But the worst is that introduction and verdict are abit contradictory. Looks like he started writing how good Olympus is and then saw his Nikon bag

25th September 2012, 11:11 AM
With the passing of Projected Slide Competitions, most clubs went over to the Normal 4:3 Resolution of XGA 1024 x 768 = 786,000 pixels

Many are now using the higher SXGA+ 1400 x 1050 = 1,470,000 pixels, with a few using UXGA 1600 x 1200 = 1,920,000 pixels.

Some clubs have adopted Multi-Media Projectors for AV and Video presentation and use them, either switched to a 4:3 resolution to maintain aspect ratio, or the image is "mounted" within a plain background of the full projectors resolution.

Widescreen (16:10) Resolutions

WXGA - 1280 x 800 = 1,024,000

WUXGA - 1920 x 1200 = 2,304,000

Widescreen (16:9) Resolutions

720p - 1280 x 720 = 921,600

1080p - 1920 x 1080 = 2,073,600

When any image is re-sized, the way in which the reduction is made by the software will make a significant difference to the end result. It is for this reason that there are a variety of algorithms that do this for us.

Effectively the high resolution cameras are having much of the quality "interpolated" down to a common denominator for these competitions and much of the time by software that is not manufacturer specific, so produces a compromise result based on their criteria rather than that of the original image processor output.

Arguably the image is no longer that of a Canon, Nikon, etc., it is now one of Lightroom, PhotoShop, Picasa, etc... :eek:

Added to that the increasing use of HDR, Tone Mapping & Art Filters, anyone attributing an image to a camera and expecting it in some way to confer quality, really is kidding themselves as well as trying to kid others. ;)

There are not that many people that have projectors at home, in the same way that we did with slides, and often will "show" their pictures on a TV or Monitor. Because of this I often here the comment made: "It looked a lot better/different to that at home". One of the main comments is colour difference.

Interestingly, I still come across clubs using old screens that were used for slides that have "Non-white" reflective surfaces. :o

All good clean fun...