PDA

View Full Version : em1 v em10 II v em5 II


IanB
21st November 2015, 12:09 AM
interesting; maybe time for oly to have 2 models instead 3 so close together
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Olympus-OM-D-E-M10-II-sensor-review-Solid-performer/Olympus-OM-D-E-M10-Mark-II-vs-Olympus-OM-D-E-M5-Mark-II-versus-Olympus-OM-D-E-M1-Competitive-sensor

found it here http://www.thephoblographer.com/2015/11/19/dxomark-tests-show-interesting-olympus-omd-e-m10-mk-ii-results/

this is so true when it comes to most cameras and reviews these days
"I’m going to preface this with saying that in real life shooting results, none of these numbers with the exception of the high ISO results are really significant enough to effect your work and post-production output.

Melaka
21st November 2015, 07:56 AM
Apart from performance there is also the fact the EM10 does not have the level of weather proofing the others have. It also takes a different battery making it less convenient as a second body. For this reason, if you don't mind your second body having less weather proofing, it's worth considering the EP5.

Graham_of_Rainham
21st November 2015, 10:05 AM
I recently attended an AP/Fuji event in London, and in conversation with Nigel Atherton, he made the comment that many cameras are turning out such similar performance.

Considering the amount of design that is done by computer and "Ye cannae change laws of physics" it's hardly any surprise that there is such a convergence of performance.

Ultimately the decision should be based more on how the camera works for you, in the way you want to use it.

Which is why I tell my wife I need a different camera, for different things... :D

snaarman
21st November 2015, 10:58 AM
While we are talking new age Olympus cameras, and not that I have any interest in buying a replacement for my EM-5 or GX-7 you understand, but I haven't seen any real comments on the "40Mp" mode some of these models offer.

Has anyone here tried it for landscape? Yes, I know there are issues with tripod and movement but is it worth considering, or should I stick with stitch up panorama method to get the resolution for big prints?

Pete

ian p
21st November 2015, 11:14 AM
I never set out to use 40mp mode. But occasionally I have been out with the tripod, or rested the camera on a wall and shot in high res mode. And the pictures are fine. But other than you can zoom in a lot more, for a landscape, 16mp is adequate any way. So I rush to the computer, open the high res shot and, well, what next? Looks much the same as normal. I don't get giant prints done.

wornish
21st November 2015, 11:26 AM
While we are talking new age Olympus cameras, and not that I have any interest in buying a replacement for my EM-5 or GX-7 you understand, but I haven't seen any real comments on the "40Mp" mode some of these models offer.

Has anyone here tried it for landscape? Yes, I know there are issues with tripod and movement but is it worth considering, or should I stick with stitch up panorama method to get the resolution for big prints?

Pete

I have tried it on a few landscapes and it really does depend on the weather. If anything moves you can notice it when you pixel peep. If you want to print really big then stitching a panorama certainly beats it.

Graham_of_Rainham
21st November 2015, 12:51 PM
I have to admit it would be nice to see all 4608x3456 pixels at 1:1 on a monitor, but the current 5K ones only do 5120x2880, so still some scrolling to do.

Switch to 40M HiRes and your 9216x6912 pixels are either going to be scrolled all over the place or squashed down to fit.

As most people will only have a 1920x1080 screen, image re-size algorithms become far more important than the original image resolution, because if the clever maths is not scrunching down all those precious pixels correctly, the image will be degraded.

With printing of course it all becomes a bit easier to see all the pixels. At 300dpi the picture is 15.36" x 11.52" which looks very nice on a sheet of A3+ paper. Your 40M prints will come out at 30.72" x 23.04" which is big enough to make you wince a bit when you see the price of printing at that size.

It's my opinion, that only the end result is important and, while interesting, the process and procedures that are used to achieve your objectives are very subjective and somewhat irrelevant.

As long as you are happy, is really all that matters...

*chr

Kiwi Paul
21st November 2015, 02:29 PM
I have to admit it would be nice to see all 4608x3456 pixels at 1:1 on a monitor, but the current 5K ones only do 5120x2880, so still some scrolling to do.

Switch to 40M HiRes and your 9216x6912 pixels are either going to be scrolled all over the place or squashed down to fit.

As most people will only have a 1920x1080 screen, image re-size algorithms become far more important than the original image resolution, because if the clever maths is not scrunching down all those precious pixels correctly, the image will be degraded.

With printing of course it all becomes a bit easier to see all the pixels. At 300dpi the picture is 15.36" x 11.52" which looks very nice on a sheet of A3+ paper. Your 40M prints will come out at 30.72" x 23.04" which is big enough to make you wince a bit when you see the price of printing at that size.
*chr

I have a 5K monitor and pictures look stunning on it due to the higher resolution. The extra detail and clarity is awesome even when just viewing full screen, at 100% the 16MP images don't full the width of the screen but over fill the top and bottom so vertical scrolling is required to view all the image.


Paul

IainMacD
21st November 2015, 02:57 PM
I have a 5K monitor and pictures look stunning on it ...
Paul

5K, now that's just showing off Paul ;) I haven't got my head round 4K yet :D

Kiwi Paul
21st November 2015, 03:05 PM
interesting; maybe time for oly to have 2 models instead 3 so close together
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Olympus-OM-D-E-M10-II-sensor-review-Solid-performer/Olympus-OM-D-E-M10-Mark-II-vs-Olympus-OM-D-E-M5-Mark-II-versus-Olympus-OM-D-E-M1-Competitive-sensor

found it here http://www.thephoblographer.com/2015/11/19/dxomark-tests-show-interesting-olympus-omd-e-m10-mk-ii-results/

this is so true when it comes to most cameras and reviews these days
"Iím going to preface this with saying that in real life shooting results, none of these numbers with the exception of the high ISO results are really significant enough to effect your work and post-production output.


I think it boils down to ergonomics and features and things like the flip out vs articulated screen, weather proofing and battery compatibility but I agree that performance alone is so even to be pretty much insignificant.

Paul

ian p
21st November 2015, 03:18 PM
I have a 5K monitor and pictures look stunning on it due to the higher resolution. The extra detail and clarity is awesome even when just viewing full screen, at 100% the 16MP images don't full the width of the screen but over fill the top and bottom so vertical scrolling is required to view all the image.


Paul
Oh heck. I guess I need to rush out and buy a modern screen. ☺

Edit: I just realised you can only those stupid wide-screen monitors now.

Graham_of_Rainham
21st November 2015, 03:37 PM
I have a 5K monitor and pictures look stunning on it <snip>

I bet they do. *ipop

Out of interest, what one have you got *???

Kiwi Paul
21st November 2015, 03:46 PM
The Dell U2715K, I spent ages debating about getting it but it had all the features I wanted, wide gamut, hardware LUT, 27" 16/9 screen, 10bit (although my current graphics card doesn't offer 10bit) and the icing on the cake was 5K resolution so after reading many reviews decided to go for it,

Paul

drmarkf
21st November 2015, 08:20 PM
interesting; maybe time for oly to have 2 models instead 3 so close together
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Olympus-OM-D-E-M10-II-sensor-review-Solid-performer/Olympus-OM-D-E-M10-Mark-II-vs-Olympus-OM-D-E-M5-Mark-II-versus-Olympus-OM-D-E-M1-Competitive-sensor

found it here http://www.thephoblographer.com/2015/11/19/dxomark-tests-show-interesting-olympus-omd-e-m10-mk-ii-results/

this is so true when it comes to most cameras and reviews these days
"I’m going to preface this with saying that in real life shooting results, none of these numbers with the exception of the high ISO results are really significant enough to effect your work and post-production output.


It's instructive to compare DXO's lens test results for, say, the 40-150 f2.8 Pro Zuiko with, say, the 70-200 f2.8 VRII Nikkor.

Now, compare the average real-life images taken by any of us with those two lenses (or the Canon equivalent, or whatever).

So, according to DXO's numbers, all Olympus and Panasonic lenses are complete rubbish, barely equivalent to Canikon's kit lenses.

While, strangely enough, our eyes tell us something different when studying the images (and, no, I'm not talking about obsessional pixel-peeping, and I have owned a Nikon D300 with that 70-200).

So, as a result, I've given up wasting my time giving any attention to DXO reviews, whose tests are clearly biassed against smaller-sensor cameras (the results they quote for crop-sensor cameras and lenses give intermediate results).

I recommend concentrating on Cameralabs, whose reviews reflect real-world performance and include both image quality and practical issues of handling.

IanB
21st November 2015, 10:44 PM
there's no doubt a gear thread will get the fingers dancing across the key board LOL

40mb: The only practical use I could see is when very res images are required of still life subjects. Some seem to feel (often the just client) they need to have full frame and even medium format quality and the little oly could match it with the big boys.

I certainly would not get the 5 II for the 40mb file; but I would use it just because I could. Imagine the 40 mb file with focus sticking; if it can be done