PDA

View Full Version : OM-D to replace FF?


Rens
6th January 2013, 11:46 PM
This is a civilised forum, but a bit quiet.

So I'm putting forward a (possibly controversial) view I've been mulling over for a week or so.

Several posters in different M 4/3 forums say they're selling their FF systems and going entirely OM-D plus lenses.

As someone who loves using his OMD, I feel compelled to say I don't get this. I take the OMD with me just about everywhere I go, it fits in one jacket pocket and another lens goes in the other pocket. It's a pleasure to use and gives lovely images. But compared with FF (Nikon in my case), it has several downsides.

I'm not usually bothered about shallow DOF, so this isn't an issue. But getting exposure right is critical. With Nikon FF and even Nikon APS-C I can under-expose to preserve highlights and push shadows in PP, but with the OMD I can do very little shadow lifting without losing significant IQ. So to avoid clipping highlights, I have to live with dark shadows whether I like it or not. Though in a way, this is a good discipline. But I still end up clipping highlights (usually bits of sky) more often than I'm used to doing.

The other downside to the OMD is high ISOs. I've read that ISO 3200 on the OMD is similar to ISO 6400 on the Nikon D700, but this just isn't my experience. Fortunately the excellent OMD IBIS makes longer exposures possible in many situations, partly negating the high ISO limitations.

The the much discussed poor AF on moving targets seems to be a problem for some, but it doesn't affect my landscape images.

So while I use the OM-D most of the time, I have no plans to part with my Nikon FF camera and lenses, and should I experience hard times, I'm not sure which system I'd sell. My guess is that it would be the OM-D, though with great regret.

Just my thoughts. Best wishes for 2013 to all, Rens

David M
7th January 2013, 12:07 AM
What's the word for fishing by trailing a baited line behind a boat.

Graham_of_Rainham
7th January 2013, 12:23 AM
This is a civilised forum, but a bit quiet.
<snip>Rens

May I ask a question, that may consentrate the discussion...

What is the final product of your photography, is it prints or displayed media *???

Rens
7th January 2013, 07:59 AM
May I ask a question, that may consentrate the discussion...

What is the final product of your photography, is it prints or displayed media *???

I print, but not usually larger than A4.

Rens

PS I also put photos of the instruments I build onto my website.

David Morison
7th January 2013, 08:03 AM
Never used a digital FF and have used a 4/3rds (or smaller) for years, but since I bought an APS-C I have a hankering for one. Not for willdife/birds though as the tele lenses would be too big/expensive. I just fancy trying one for landscapes as some FFs are not any bigger than APS, but whether I will or not....... (If only they made a digital TLR!)

David

Rens
7th January 2013, 08:25 AM
Never used a digital FF and have used a 4/3rds (or smaller) for years, but since I bought an APS-C I have a hankering for one. Not for willdife/birds though as the tele lenses would be too big/expensive. I just fancy trying one for landscapes as some FFs are not any bigger than APS, but whether I will or not....... (If only they made a digital TLR!)

David

It's very likely that had I bought the OMD first, I'd never have justified the expense of a FF Nikon plus lenses. But since I have them, I intend to hang on to them, though I'll certainly not buy more FF lenses now.

Alpha1
7th January 2013, 08:34 AM
Well, I have tried FF,APS-c and MFT. Suffice to say, the FF has gone together with a host of FF lenses, I still have the APS-c but it will be going soon. I have two OM_D bodies with five lenses and I hope for more to follow. I also have the FL600R flash.

I don't change camera systems easily.....it is too expensive but for my sort of photography, natural history and travel, the OM-D ticks just about all the boxes.

It enables me to print to club exhibition size, ie 14"x9" on a 500x400mm mount and more than adequate digital projection images. I need no more!

Ian
7th January 2013, 09:25 AM
Full frame has its place. But the advantages are eroding and the disadvantages mounting.

By the way, you don't really have to under-expose as much as you might think in order to preserve highlights, especially with an E-M5. Highlights are surprisingly recoverable with digital and there is a school of thought that you should keep the hiistogram to the right of centre although be careful not to push it so far that extreme highlights are clipped.

Full frame advantages - yes, there is more dynamic range (although the E-M5 is close to some popular FF models from just a few years ago), more resolution with some models, bigger brighter opetical TTL finder.

Full frame disadvantages - size and weight of both bodies and lenses, for some, a lack of EVF (most FF models) and articulating finder, noticeable difference in corner image quality to centre of frame. Cost.

I'm sure I could add to both advantages and disadvantages.

Ian

Bikie John
7th January 2013, 10:11 AM
As with most things in life, it's all a compromise. Some equipment will do some things better than others, and other things less well. Some stuff is more expensive, some stuff is bigger/heavier, some stuff performs less well in low light, allows less enlargement or whatever. If I'm deciding whether something is worth getting there are 2 things to remember:

- if it's good enough, it's good enough. Better is always nice but maybe not necessary.

- if you leave it at home it's about as much use as a chocolate fireguard. Or even less because you can't eat it.

As for your comments about highlights - I have found that E-M5 raw files allow an astonishing degree of highlight recovery. I haven't used Nikon 35mm format bodies so can't compare directly, but there seems to much more at the top end of the files than any other cameras that I have used (other Oly, Panasonic, Ricoh and Leica). The generated JPEG files don't reflect this, and Oly viewer does not do a good job at getting the detail out. But Photoshop or Lightroom will find some amazing stuff in E-M5 raw files.

Ciao ... John

Jim Ford
7th January 2013, 10:12 AM
What's the word for fishing by trailing a baited line behind a boat.

'Trailing' - but in America it's called 'trolling'! In the U.K. 'trolling' was a fishing term used for simply lowering and raising a lure in the water. I believe it was mainly used when fishing for grayling ('grasshopper lure' springs to mind).

Jim

Graham_of_Rainham
7th January 2013, 10:39 AM
I print, but not usually larger than A4.

Rens

PS I also put photos of the instruments I build onto my website.

The sensor resolution of the OM-D easily provides for A4 prints @ 300dpi with ample room for crops, alignment, etc..

As soon as re-size down for web use is required, virtually all cameras provide adequate resolution.

In reality there are so many stages of transformation from the point where light from the subject falling on the sensor, makes its way electronically to the eyes viewing the image. Considering any picture as having qualities related to the camera is highly tenuous if there has been any processing, let alone RAW image data that has passed through multiple post process manipulations.

With slide film we were very close to being able to see for ourself the real variations in quality of cameras. Now while there is DxO and others that can analyse all these things for us, the end result really only ever matters to us as individuals and our opinions, tastes and personal choices.

Of course the debate will never end, and perhaps that too is a good thing. For me the end product (in the same way as food ;) ) is all that matters.

However: I've always gained a great deal of enjoyment and satisfaction in using cameras to achieve an end product. Having had the advantage and opportunity to use some of the most sophisticated image producing equipment in the world, when it came to my personal kit I, tried all sorts of makes and formats and simply never found any that worked better for me than that produced by Olympus.

*chr

Alpha1
7th January 2013, 10:56 AM
'Trailing' - but in America it's called 'trolling'! In the U.K. 'trolling' was a fishing term used for simply lowering and raising a lure in the water. I believe it was mainly used when fishing for grayling ('grasshopper lure' springs to mind).

Jim

I thought that a Troll was a Norwegian folklore figure!

Jim Ford
7th January 2013, 11:20 AM
I thought that a Troll was a Norwegian folklore figure!

It is, but when used on the internet the term is used for someone posting a controversial topic as 'bait' for a heated discussion, but many people think it refers to the mythical creature.

Strictly speaking, 'a troll' is the name of a mythical creature and therefore a noun. Whereas 'trolling' is a fishing activity and therefore a verb. So therefore on the internet, a person baiting the community should be described as 'trolling', rather than as 'a troll'.

Jim

Nick Temple-Fry
7th January 2013, 11:31 AM
'Trailing' - but in America it's called 'trolling'! In the U.K. 'trolling' was a fishing term used for simply lowering and raising a lure in the water. I believe it was mainly used when fishing for grayling ('grasshopper lure' springs to mind).

Jim

I thought trolling was the habit of towing a dead goat in the water in the hope of attracting Moby Dick.

Actually I suspect it has longer origins in the UK than Jim gives it credence for. Trolling certainly has usage in sea fishing back into the 19'th century and almost certainly earlier. Back in the 15'th century it was the name given to a fishing reel. And as a word it seems to have both german and french roots in meaning to 'wander about'.

Which goes to show that the meaning of words change, one wonders what will be called Full Frame in the 22'nd century, when Cinema film will just be a folklore memory.

Nick

Jim Ford
7th January 2013, 11:34 AM
Actually I suspect it has longer origins in the UK than Jim gives it credence for. Trolling certainly has usage in sea fishing back into the 19'th century and almost certainly earlier.

My knowledge of the term comes from 19th Century angling books that I used to have many years ago when I fished.

Jim

Bikie John
7th January 2013, 11:42 AM
Spectacular piece of thread drift here!

John

andym
7th January 2013, 11:43 AM
Spectacular piece of thread drift here!

John

So we are getting like DPR:eek::eek::eek:

Seonnaidh
7th January 2013, 11:44 AM
Here I was thinking that a Troll lived under a bridge and had a bad attitude towards Goats.
Back to topic.
I have stated on numerous occasions that my move from Nikon FF has been a less stressful experience than I could ever imagine.
I regularly print at 20"x 16" size and even being hyper critical I cannot see a difference in
IQ that justifies an Investment of £12k plus. Not when £4k is doing the job perfectly well. I recently posted some White Tailed Sea Eagle images on the forum this being one of them.
http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/500/WTSE_5Star_2.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/55067)

This image is quite a savage crop from the original and I am certainly not disappointed
with the result.
As for exposure, well I haven't done too many weddings with the OMD yet but I can't see there being a problem from what I've experienced so far.
Image quality at High ISO's no problem. In my experience 1600 ISO has proved to be perfectly acceptable. Landscapes are my primary source of income and I wish the OMD went down to a true 25 ISO. Less need for 10 stop filters then if thats what floats your boat.
All in all I really love my OMD and it has been a very very long time since I've had any emotional feelings towards a camera. My Nikon F2AS for it's reliability, my OM system for it's reliability and convenience. My Leica M4p for it's simplicity and reliability.
Other cameras, and I've owned/used dozens of them in various formats, have just been tools to do a job with.
All of the really talented and / or famous photographers I've ever met have always eschewed the importance of the camera and emphasised the the need for ability within the user. 'Nuff said.

Zuiko
7th January 2013, 11:45 AM
It's all relative. With 4 times the sensor area you'd expect FF to be a bit better than MFT. Whether that "bit better" is enough to justify a system that is a lot bigger, heavier and more expensive only the individual photographer can decide. But if ultimate quality is needed for landscapes why stop at full frame? Why not a Pentax 645D or a 5x4 field camera with digital back?

As I say, it's all relative. When using film for landscapes I looked down upon 135 format "full frame" as being inadequate. No doubt 6x7 users looked down upon my Bronica ETRSi (645) and sheet film users looked down upon them. All I know is that I don't find my results from the E-M5 inadequate compared to my Bronica, so I have to ask how much quality do we really need and does that "bit better" really justify digital Full Frame?

Ian
7th January 2013, 11:52 AM
Come on guys - I think this is a reasonable question, give the guy a break.

Ian

Zuiko
7th January 2013, 11:56 AM
Spectacular piece of thread drift here!

John

I think the guys are just saying FF v MFT is not a topic they want to get hooked on. However, the OP (Rens) has a valid question and I've replied with my take on the subject. Don't worry, I'll reel the thread in if the waters become too muddy. :)

Seonnaidh
7th January 2013, 11:58 AM
Apologies Ian,
I didn't think I was being too harsh.
But apologies to Rens if he thinks I've been too harsh.
I'm just trying to illustrate that for me there is no problem moving from FF to mFT.

Melaka
7th January 2013, 12:01 PM
I love debates like this. The manufacturers must be rubbing their hands with glee as we all chop and change from one system to another!

Zuiko
7th January 2013, 12:02 PM
Come on guys - I think this is a reasonable question, give the guy a break.

Ian

I think there is perhaps some underlying concern that this is the sort of topic that can go horribly wrong on other forums. My view is that we are all sufficiently mature and reasonable, with a great spirit of harmony, for that not to happen here. Plus, unlike some other forums, this one is moderated...... ;)

Zuiko
7th January 2013, 12:11 PM
Apologies Ian,
I didn't think I was being too harsh.
But apologies to Rens if he thinks I've been too harsh.
I'm just trying to illustrate that for me there is no problem moving from FF to mFT.

Jon, I don't think it was one individual or one particular post, more a general vibe that was building. If anything, your sea eagle example and comments helped steer the thread back on course. Mind you, the subliminal message of the eagle fishing did not escape me, or was that just coincidence? :D

Zuiko
7th January 2013, 12:13 PM
I love debates like this. The manufacturers must be rubbing their hands with glee as we all chop and change from one system to another!

Well, that's exactly what Olympus are hoping will happen, with more comming than going. :D

Ian
7th January 2013, 12:13 PM
Sorry Jon - John summed it up perfectly. :)

Ian

Seonnaidh
7th January 2013, 12:14 PM
John, I've never done anything subliminal in my life. Me Dad said I would go blind!

Ian
7th January 2013, 12:14 PM
I think there is perhaps some underlying concern that this is the sort of topic that can go horribly wrong on other forums. My view is that we are all sufficiently mature and reasonable, with a great spirit of harmony, for that not to happen here. Plus, unlike some other forums, this one is moderated...... ;)

Indeed :D

Ian

Zuiko
7th January 2013, 12:26 PM
John, I've never done anything subliminal in my life. Me Dad said I would go blind!

And you'd grow hairs on the palms of your hands! :D

Back to topic. I find it interesting that both Nikon and Canon have recently released comparatively smaller, lighter and much, much cheaper full frame cameras. Surely that risks canabalizing the sales of their high end APS-C ranges? Or is it that they are preparing in advance for the ultimate surrender of much of the cropped sensor market to mirrorless cameras (not just MFT) by making full frame more viable and affordable to many more photographers? Are they doing this to create growth in one of their markets to compensate for shrinkage of another and does this portend the eventual demise of the DSLR in any format but full frame?

Ian
7th January 2013, 12:35 PM
And you'd grow hairs on the palms of your hands! :D

Back to topic. I find it interesting that both Nikon and Canon have recently released comparatively smaller, lighter and much, much cheaper full frame cameras. Surely that risks canabalizing the sales of their high end APS-C ranges? Or is it that they are preparing in advance for the ultimate surrender of much of the cropped sensor market to mirrorless cameras (not just MFT) by making full frame more viable and affordable to many more photographers? Are they doing this to create growth in one of their markets to compensate for shrinkage of another and does this portend the eventual demise of the DSLR in any format but full frame?

Much cheaper? Well, maybe relatively but here is an example:

1450 FF Nikon D600 24MP body only
445 APS-C Nikon D3200 24MP body only

Most of the 1,000 FF premium is down to the extremely high cost of manufacturing full frame sensors because of their physical size which means a very low yield from the semiconductor process compared to smaller sensors.

Ian

brian1208
7th January 2013, 12:44 PM
Several posters in different M 4/3 forums say they're selling their FF systems and going entirely OM-D plus lenses.

Me too!

I sold my 60D + some lenses to purchase the EM-5 + a couple of lenses but kept the 5Dmk2 + L lenses (thinking I would need them for my "Proper", more commercial work)

Over a couple of months it became apparent that the 5Dmk2 kit just wasn't getting used enough to justify having several £k of investment tied up in it - so I sold the lot (with a bit of trepidation it must be confessed)

Some of the money went into completing my lens line-up and getting flash guns etc but I still came out with around £1000 in my back pocket (there's good money to be made selling pro canon kit) http://e-group.uk.net/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif

Has it worked for me - yes, I now have a full system I can take with me in a small shoulder bag, I can hand-hold for hours with a 150-600 fl equivalent lens on the front and better yet, I'm still making prints up to 30"x20" that my customers are happily buying (and winning the odd competition now and then with the output)

As always - what makes sense for one may not for another, but that's the beauty of photography, we can all do our own thing *chr

Seonnaidh
7th January 2013, 12:49 PM
Brian,
You have echoed my sentiments entirely.

Zuiko
7th January 2013, 12:55 PM
Much cheaper? Well, maybe relatively but here is an example:

1450 FF Nikon D600 24MP body only
445 APS-C Nikon D3200 24MP body only

Most of the 1,000 FF premium is down to the extremely high cost of manufacturing full frame sensors because of their physical size which means a very low yield from the semiconductor process compared to smaller sensors.

Ian

D800 body 1999

D300s body 1075

E-M5 body 999

D7000 body only 635 but many users at this level will have a substantial investment in lenses, making an upgrade to the D600 a cheaper overall option than switching brands.

I think it could be a possibility that Nikon secretly accept that they will ultimately lose many users at D3200 level and are preparing to woo users at D7000/D300s level to full frame. I believe that the D600 is already being discounted in the States and it's quite possible that Nikon will follow with even cheaper full frame models.

Rens
7th January 2013, 01:53 PM
As for your comments about highlights - I have found that E-M5 raw files allow an astonishing degree of highlight recovery. I haven't used Nikon 35mm format bodies so can't compare directly, but there seems to much more at the top end of the files than any other cameras that I have used (other Oly, Panasonic, Ricoh and Leica). The generated JPEG files don't reflect this, and Oly viewer does not do a good job at getting the detail out. But Photoshop or Lightroom will find some amazing stuff in E-M5 raw files.

Ciao ... John

I've only just acquired the means to open OMD ORFs in Photoshop, and used Oly Viewer until then; maybe I can do better in the future. I'm certainly not an expert post processor, I've just found out (over the years) enough to PP Nikon files the way I like them. Generally I found under-exposing a bit and lifting shadows if I needed to worked well for me.

Which clearly doesn't suit OMD ORFs. I'll investigate further.

I'd love the simplicity of one compact system, so I hope I'm wrong in thinking the OMD isn't the one.

Regards from Troll-land.

Rens

PS While I'm keeping the Nikon FF stuff, at least for the time being, I'm disposing of my D5100 which was the previous smaller lighter camera I carried around. I haven't looked at it since getting the OMD.

Jim Ford
7th January 2013, 02:05 PM
I believe that the D600 is already being discounted in the States

I wonder if it's because of poor sales owing to the serious issues the D600 has with very dirty sensors?

Jim

Zuiko
7th January 2013, 02:41 PM
I wonder if it's because of poor sales owing to the serious issues the D600 has with very dirty sensors?

Jim

What Nikon doesn't have a dirty sensor? :rolleyes:

Oh, you mean the issue of the shutter spraying oil on the sensor for the first 2000 frames. :D

At least it doesn't have a hairline crack in the screen bezel. :rolleyes:

Bikie John
7th January 2013, 02:42 PM
I've only just acquired the means to open OMD ORFs in Photoshop, and used Oly Viewer until then; maybe I can do better in the future. I'm certainly not an expert post processor, I've just found out (over the years) enough to PP Nikon files the way I like them. Generally I found under-exposing a bit and lifting shadows if I needed to worked well for me.

Give it a try, it's really simple - just open the raw file in PS (or Lightroom if you have it) and if you've got some burnt out highlights pull back on the "highlights" and "whites" sliders. You can also push the "exposure" slider one way or the other if needed. You may find that you have to expose and process them slightly differently from the Nikon files that you are familiar with, but that's just part of learning about the kit.

Good luck ... John

David M
7th January 2013, 02:47 PM
John, I used to shoot landscapes on a 5x4 having replaced my medium format kit with large format. I then found out my agency was duping my 35mm shots up to 5x4! The large format kit went soon after that.

Zuiko
7th January 2013, 02:55 PM
John, I used to shoot landscapes on a 5x4 having replaced my medium format kit with large format. I then found out my agency was duping my 35mm shots up to 5x4! The large format kit went soon after that.

Yes, I believe that was common practise at one stage. No gain in quality of course, but it made a tranny which was easier to view and handle.

David M
7th January 2013, 03:01 PM
Yes, it also meant the original was safely in their files. Plus 5x4 was a better 'fit' for magazine covers.

Rens
7th January 2013, 03:11 PM
Give it a try, it's really simple - just open the raw file in PS (or Lightroom if you have it) and if you've got some burnt out highlights pull back on the "highlights" and "whites" sliders. You can also push the "exposure" slider one way or the other if needed. You may find that you have to expose and process them slightly differently from the Nikon files that you are familiar with, but that's just part of learning about the kit.

Good luck ... John

Yes, I understand the technique, it just took me a while to learn never to under-expose OMD files. I find they can stand relatively little shadow lifting as compared to D700 files.

brian1208
7th January 2013, 05:48 PM
On the other hand, compared to the canon kit at least, it copes very well with the ETTR mode and can recover "burnt out" areas better (with the added benefit of low noise)

Don't know how this is compared to nikon?

Greytop
7th January 2013, 06:08 PM
Rens give CaptureOne 7 a whirl, it's excellent with EM-5 orf (RAW) files.

Rens
7th January 2013, 06:31 PM
Apologies Ian,
I didn't think I was being too harsh.
But apologies to Rens if he thinks I've been too harsh.
I'm just trying to illustrate that for me there is no problem moving from FF to mFT.

Absolutely no offence taken. At the same time as mine is a valid point to make on this forum, I can understand that I could possibly also be treading on a few toes. And I'm not so thin skinned as to object to honest discussion.

As for the troll jokes, why not? Some amusing suggestions.

Regards from the troll cave, Rens

Barr1e
7th January 2013, 07:51 PM
As for the troll jokes, why not? Some amusing suggestions.

Regards from the troll cave, Rens

;) :D

Regards. Barr1e

Rens
10th January 2013, 09:15 PM
Perhaps I should add that the OMD is at a disadvantage because I'm considering only lenses that will fit in a Barbour pocket, whereas the FF lenses are higher quality (and huge). This is because for me, the portability of the OMD is such a big part of why I bought it.

Rens

OM USer
11th January 2013, 10:26 AM
If Olympus had come up with a digital version of the OM4 I would have been there in FF like a shot many years ago. As it was the early sensors in all camera makes didn't impress me enough to switch systems and shutter lag was terrible (combination of focus time AND time to activate/read the sensor). The size of the E-5 (sensors were now OK and going to 4/3rds was not a big issue for me) was too big, and the E-620 did not tick enough boxes. The E-M5 was a significant improvement in all areas and took my existing OM Zuiko lenses via an adapter. End of contest.

Kiwi Paul
11th January 2013, 11:41 AM
I've not posted on here much recently as I've now got a all Pany kit, nothing against Oly just I preferred the DSLR style of the G and GH series cameras.
I've recently got the GH3 and have the 12-35 and 35-100 Lumix lenses. The GH3 uses the same sensor as the OMD as far as I know so the IQ is going to be pretty much the same at RAW and I must say I'm really impressed, the DR and overall IQ is really good and I'm not wanting for anything.
The GH3 seems to go against the m43 philosophy that smaller is better, but the extra size (it's just a bit bigger than an E520) means great ergonomics and it really does have a hand in glove feel, however the m43 lenses are still small so the overall package is still compact, not pocketable though.
My point being that m43 as a system offers users a huge variety of camera models from the small pocketable EP-M, EP-L series up to the OM-D and GH3, the IQ of the latest cameras (especially OM-D and GH-3) is really good and I can see no reason to consider FF for the type of photography I do.

Paul