PDA

View Full Version : om-d em-5 v e3


monoboard
10th June 2013, 02:29 PM
Hi folks

can any one give me a comparison between a om-d e5 with a 12-50 lens v e3 with 12-60 lens ref AF on moving objects & low light performance.

many thanks

monoboard

jamsa
10th June 2013, 06:33 PM
I moved from E-3 to EM5, would say the EM5 is quicker. But I liked the feel of the 12-50 more then I do the 12-60.

Doug H
10th June 2013, 10:15 PM
This is more from memory as I no longer have the E-3, nor the lenses you mention:
I found that the E-3 was quicker with moving objects but that the EM-5 was quicker, more accurate and near silent (focussing) with stationary or slow moving objects. I use the EM-5 in low to very low light conditions without hesitation, but I'd use the 45 and not the 12-50.
In my view, there is a trade off between the faster aperture of the E-3 with 12-60 (vs 12-50) and the better low light capabilities of the E-M5 with both its EVF and higher ISO capabilities. For me, the E-M5 wins most of the time as it allows me to shoot when I can hardly see without the benefit of the EVF; when I use the 45, it wins hands down.

I really wanted to use the 12-60 on the EM-5 but I found I lost too many people shots to keep it.

For me, it wasn't the simple and easy change I had foolishly expected - I needed to rethink my approach and my choice of lenses. If fast moving objects is of major importance and the E-3 + 12-60 does what you want, try to keep them and get the EM-5 as well, but I'd suggest looking at the Pan 25 or the Oly 45 rather than the 12-50 if low light/fast lenses are also important.

Doug

alfbranch
10th June 2013, 10:15 PM
I would like to know what its like using an EM-5 with a 12-60?

Doug H
11th June 2013, 09:19 AM
For static subjects where you can carefully compose and focus and shoot at your convenience (or focus manually), the 12-60 on an E-M5 is very good and very versatile. A little lens-heavy, true, but a grip helps this.
For any situations where you want to focus and shoot NOW, using the 12-60 on the EM-5 is a little like using a slightly older point and shoot - it will focus but in its own time and then shoot - it's not really that slow, but it's no longer the speed you've become accustomed to on an E series body. I had become too used to relying on fast auto focus to go back to manually focussing.
You can help speed this up by making sure you are not using eye-focus (if shooting portraits), using vivid JPG setting (even if shooting RAW only) and maybe some others. I mostly use S-AF, but I never played with changing the Release priority settings - only thought of that now.

However, it's when you put the 12-60 against the 12-50 or 45 (or, I guess, other Oly primes) where the focus is near instant, near silent, no fussing around and possibly more accurate that you really notice the differences. I was in the process of seriously reducing the amount of gear I had, so the 12-60, despite being my all-time favourite lens, had to go (the E-3 had already gone to help pay for the E-M5).

All in all, I think it's only something you can weigh up for yourself with your own style of shooting but I hope this helps.


Doug

alfbranch
11th June 2013, 06:46 PM
Doug
Thanks for talking the time to reply is there any noticeable difference between the quality of the 12-60 and the 12-50 because as a landscape photographer I am happy with manual focus quite often.

Doug H
11th June 2013, 10:13 PM
When I bought the E-M5, I bought it with the 12-50 because the price seemed too good not to, but I never really took to it and so sold it on fairly soon afterwards. My reasons were largely that I missed both the extra reach and the wider apertures though I felt the quality was good enough (for me) while not at the same level as the 12-60. I'll happily leave it to others to comment on the quality differences as I really didn't use the 12-50 for long.

Anyone else wish to comment?


Doug

Greytop
11th June 2013, 10:51 PM
If you are looking for a comparable quality m4/3rds zoom to the 12-60, look no further than the Panny 12-35 with it's constant f/2.8 aperture.
OK it doesn't have the 12-60's reach but image quality wise it's pretty much right there (I've had two 12-60 in the past before I went totally m4/3rds).

http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/500/E-M5_12-35.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/49102)

Edit: Oh and once you have tried the 12-35 you will want to add it's partner in crime the 35-100 (again with a constant f/2.8)

Ross the fiddler
11th June 2013, 11:41 PM
If you are looking for a comparable quality m4/3rds zoom to the 12-60, look no further than the Panny 12-35 with it's constant f/2.8 aperture.
OK it doesn't have the 12-60's reach but image quality wise it's pretty much right there (I've had two 12-60 in the past before I went totally m4/3rds).

Edit: Oh and once you have tried the 12-35 your will want to add it's partner in crime the 35-100 (again with a constant f/2.8)

They are on my dream list, but by the time I can somehow justify (to my wife) that I can afford & need them, then Oly might have there bright zooms out then.

alfbranch
12th June 2013, 12:04 AM
The 12-35 is a nice looking option and as little £620

Gwyver
12th June 2013, 04:54 PM
Doug
... is there any noticeable difference between the quality of the 12-60 and the 12-50 because as a landscape photographer I am happy with manual focus quite often.

Alf,
When taking landscapes whilst going on day-long hill walks I use the 12-60 on my EM-5 in preference to the 12-50 because I think the results have better contrast and are noticeably sharper from edge to edge. The AF is usually very accurate although a little slow (& the SWD motor makes a disconcerting noise as it oscillates towards focus lock).

Although I would welcome the weight reduction from using the 12-50, IMO, unless it's easy for you to return and retake the photo, capturing the best quality image is worth the extra load.

alfbranch
13th June 2013, 07:03 AM
Thanks Chris thats just what I needed to know.

monoboard
15th June 2013, 10:26 PM
Thanks for every ones reply's

Monoboard