[RobA_Oz]

Hmm. As attractive as the OM-D is from some perspectives, the direct comparison on DxOMark shows that it lags behind the K-5 by around 1.8 EVs in the Dynamic Range tests. That wouldn't be too much of a problem in some situations, but its attractiveness as a lightweight unit for some landscape photography is diminished as a result. I doubt I could stand the odd EVF effects, either, from my brief handling of one, although for static subjects that wouldn't be so much of an issue.

[pingflood]

Hmm. As attractive as the OM-D is from some perspectives, the direct comparison on DxOMark shows that it lags behind the K-5 by around 1.8 EVs in the Dynamic Range tests. That wouldn't be too much of a problem in some situations, but its attractiveness as a lightweight unit for some landscape photography is diminished as a result. I doubt I could stand the odd EVF effects, either, from my brief handling of one, although for static subjects that wouldn't be so much of an issue.

First off, I do not mean to diminish Pentax's accomplishments in getting such a huge dynamic range out of the K-5.

However, the OM-D has a greater dynamic range than cameras like the 5D mark III, and I really do not see people having too much trouble shooting landscapes with those... it is easy to get too caught up in numbers when fact is that all these cameras are more than sufficient for the vast majority of shooters. Or would you deem the 5D III insufficient for landcape shooting too?

[Rondec]

Well the question really is "what is good enough?" Your camera doesn't really have to have the best dynamic range, best resolution in order to take great photos. Looks to me like the OM-D gets there. Sure, it is a little behind current APS-C a lot behind current full frame, but there are plenty of folks who still take great photos with their kxs and don't worry that it doesn't have quite as good dynamic range as the K5.

The biggest question in my mind is Olympus as a camera company's future. Just feels more uncertain, particularly since they just needed a big investment from Sony to stay afloat. I sure would hate to see them go, though.

[RobA_Oz]

First off, I do not mean to diminish Pentax's accomplishments in getting such a huge dynamic range out of the K-5.

However, the OM-D has a greater dynamic range than cameras like the 5D mark III, and I really do not see people having too much trouble shooting landscapes with those... it is easy to get too caught up in numbers when fact is that all these cameras are more than sufficient for the vast majority of shooters. Or would you deem the 5D III insufficient for landcape shooting too?

Well, my emphasis in this was the lightweight nature of the OM-D, but I take your point. Frankly though, I wouldn't dream of lugging a 5D of any mark around (nor the equiivalent Nikons) with a bundle of lenses just because of that. Others do, and good luck to them and their bodies - mine's been warning me of the need to lighten up for a while now, so the K-5 is as heavy a beast as I want to go with.

But, to get back to your point, the use of the word "diminish" does not necessarily imply "zero" attractiveness, because the OM-D is far more attractive to me than a 5DIII or a D800, simply because of the weight factor. As to the question of what is enough Dynamic Range, perhaps we can let individuals judge that for themselves, but I think film shooters might have a view here that doesn't sit comfortably with some others.

[pingflood]

Well, having started out with film (and still using some) I have to say that the E-M5 does not lack for anything when it comes to practical use (for me). Since the shadows can be massively boosted without introducing uglies it has more than sufficient DR for any scene I could imagine shooting. But of course, everyone has different needs.

Hell, for most of my shooting my very outdated 1DsII suffices:

[ogl]

Their review includes comparisons with scores of other popular MILCs:

DxOMark - Olympus OM-D E-M5: The best of the micro 4:3 cameras

The advantages of using Sony sensor technology is pretty obvious.

It's the level of D300s.

[Winder]

The biggest question in my mind is Olympus as a camera company's future. Just feels more uncertain, particularly since they just needed a big investment from Sony to stay afloat. I sure would hate to see them go, though.

I'm sure they can buy Sony out if/when they want to, and Sony having a stake in the company might be a good thing. Olympus has always had problems with sensors. Sony makes the best sensors and now has a vested interest in Olympus. This will also put the screws to Panasonic to build more competitive sensors. Although Panasonic wont say who makes the sensor in the GH-3, which is odd. Panasonic might be buying Sony sensors as well.

The OM-D out performs the Canon 7D which is still Canons flagship APS-C. It performs as well as any Canon APS-C camera on the market. The real world IQ is more than adequate for the vast majority of the population and the new Olympus primes (12mm, 45mm, 60mm, 75mm) are stellar lenses.

[JinDesu]

I'm sure they can buy Sony out if/when they want to, and Sony having a stake in the company might be a good thing. Olympus has always had problems with sensors. Sony makes the best sensors and now has a vested interest in Olympus. This will also put the screws to Panasonic to build more competitive sensors. Although Panasonic wont say who makes the sensor in the GH-3, which is odd. Panasonic might be buying Sony sensors as well.

The OM-D out performs the Canon 7D which is still Canons flagship APS-C. It performs as well as any Canon APS-C camera on the market. The real world IQ is more than adequate for the vast majority of the population and the new Olympus primes (12mm, 45mm, 60mm, 75mm) are stellar lenses.

I think that just says badly of the Canon APS-C sensor lol...

Although the Olympus primes are definitely fantastic. If I didn't have a fantastic love of the k-5 already, I might have switched over to the OM-D system.

[Winder]

I think that just says badly of the Canon APS-C sensor lol...

It does, and Canon is falling behind on sensor development. But has that hurt Canon sales in the consumer market? IF OM-D can exceed Canon APS-C then they are doing more than enough to be competitive in their target market.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Well the question really is "what is good enough?"

This is answered by dxomark as follows: DR >= 9Ev, color depth >= 18bit, SNR >= 30db. E-M5 provides that up to ~ISO 800, K-5 up to ISO ~1100 (half stop over 800, hence my comment). The rest is nitpicking.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

By your logic M4/3 is also a pointless format, as it doesn't offer a 1 stop advantage over the sensor in the Sony RX100.

It would be pointless indeed if you were correct, but it looks like you do not understand dxomark data. Low light score for RX100 is 390, for E-M5 it is 826 - that is more than one stop difference. Even more if you start looking at lens options.

It's the level of D300 - announced on August, 2007.

Nice try, but it's actually better than the D300. D300 scores 679 vs. 826 - that's close to 1/3 stop difference. There was a big deal made here on PF when the K-7 had a similar difference from the K20D. I still remember the "more than 1 stop difference" claims from enthusiastic K20D owners.

Let me help you out because you need it: bring up the D90 when you want to give an example of a 4 year old camera with great performance. It's still competitive today, even next to the K-5.

***

I know a lot of people are happy that the K-5 got a great score, but there is still little understanding around what the scores mean. The most important difference between small and large sensors is noise - small sensors are noisier than larger ones - the dxomark score that reflects this aspect is the low light score, which tells you how far the sensor can go before the IQ it produces drops below "good enough" (see previous post). The K-5 DR is amazing but not necessary for many landscape applications, especially with the availability of HDR tools. For the past year, I shot with the E-PL2, which only has 10.2 Ev DR. I only remember one scene where I clipped the highlights because the subject was in shadows and I didn't want it to come out noisy.

APS-C is rather pointless because it never tried to compete with FF. It gave away 1 stop for some size and price reduction, but never offered equivalent lenses. The Pentax 50-135/2.8 was sold as an equivalent to a 70-200, but it is equivalent to a 70-200/4, not a 70-200/2.8. Meanwhile, Olympus at least understood this aspect and offered f/2 zooms for their FT format. All of the lenses I have for Pentax are FF with the notable exceptions of the DA 15 and Tamron 17-50 (and the kit zooms). NEX, NX and Fuji might keep the format alive for a while, but the RX1 bodes ill, I think.

[ogl]

Nice try, but it's actually better than the D300. D300 scores 679 vs. 826 - that's close to 1/3 stop difference..

Ooups...I mean D300s
D300s. announced 2009-07-30
DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side

if we say about Pentax..It's K-r and K-x's level. Not bad.

[Rondec]

It would be pointless indeed if you were correct, but it looks like you do not understand dxomark data. Low light score for RX100 is 390, for E-M5 it is 826 - that is more than one stop difference. Even more if you start looking at lens options.



Nice try, but it's actually better than the D300. D300 scores 679 vs. 826 - that's close to 1/3 stop difference. There was a big deal made here on PF when the K-7 had a similar difference from the K20D. I still remember the "more than 1 stop difference" claims from enthusiastic K20D owners.

Let me help you out because you need it: bring up the D90 when you want to give an example of a 4 year old camera with great performance. It's still competitive today, even next to the K-5.

***

I know a lot of people are happy that the K-5 got a great score, but there is still little understanding around what the scores mean. The most important difference between small and large sensors is noise - small sensors are noisier than larger ones - the dxomark score that reflects this aspect is the low light score, which tells you how far the sensor can go before the IQ it produces drops below "good enough" (see previous post). The K-5 DR is amazing but not necessary for many landscape applications, especially with the availability of HDR tools. For the past year, I shot with the E-PL2, which only has 10.2 Ev DR. I only remember one scene where I clipped the highlights because the subject was in shadows and I didn't want it to come out noisy.

APS-C is rather pointless because it never tried to compete with FF. It gave away 1 stop for some size and price reduction, but never offered equivalent lenses. The Pentax 50-135/2.8 was sold as an equivalent to a 70-200, but it is equivalent to a 70-200/4, not a 70-200/2.8. Meanwhile, Olympus at least understood this aspect and offered f/2 zooms for their FT format. All of the lenses I have for Pentax are FF with the notable exceptions of the DA 15 and Tamron 17-50 (and the kit zooms). NEX, NX and Fuji might keep the format alive for a while, but the RX1 bodes ill, I think.

I don't get at all what you are saying. Olympus has f2 zooms, sure, which are huge and expensive and are still just the equivalent of the f4 zooms. So how does that benefit anyone, particularly when no one can afford one?

As to dynamic range, I like having higher dynamic range. It allows for plenty of "pseudo-HDR" ability which can look much more natural than true HDR.

The reality of course, is that there is a place for all of these formats. The smaller formats up till now have benefited from a significant price break from full frame. Even now, the K5 II is going to come in at about a thousand dollars less than the D600. I certainly don't see the day any time soon when full frame is going to cut down on the sales of the 450 dollar rebels that Canon keeps churning out.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Ooups...I mean D300s
D300s. announced 2009-07-30
DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side

if we say about Pentax..It's K-r and K-x's level. Not bad.

Even the D300s is 787. I think the performance of the older D90 is striking (2008-08-27), with a 977 score.

You can also look at it this way: E-M5 now equals and surpasses the score of APS-C cameras, including very recent ones that are top sellers (7D, 60D). K-5 still is 1 stop behind D700 (2008-07-01), which scored 2303. The K-5 looks so good to us because previous Pentax APS-C cameras were so poor performers at high ISO, but it wasn't as big of a jump forward compared to the D90 - it was just a big jump compared to K10D/K20D/K-7.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

I don't get at all what you are saying. Olympus has f2 zooms, sure, which are huge and expensive and are still just the equivalent of the f4 zooms.

The point is that they are the equivalent of f/2.5 zooms on APS-C.

MFT can compete easily with APS-C, APS-C cannot compete with FF - that is my point. And with MFT providing a size advantage, it is not clear to me what is the point of the APS-C format (other than as a historical oddity).

As to dynamic range, I like having higher dynamic range.

I like it too, but it's not enough to make me select a camera because of it.

It is also not clear to me that DR performance is practically limited by sensor format and thus I should prefer a format over another because of the DR advantages it offers. For example, the Pentax Q DR is deceptively close to that of the 5DII (11.1 vs 11.9). The RX100 has a 12.4 DR. But do you really think the Q or the RX100 can hold a candle to the 5DII? 10Ev is a great DR to have. More than that is icing on the cake - nice to have, but won't make the difference between two sensor formats. Same goes for color depth. The main practical difference I can observe between formats is in noise.

Also, if you look at dxomark graphs, you will see that DR performance degrades the slowest - it is noise and color depth that drag high ISO performance down for all cameras. You first get noisy images with little color detail before you get to see DR limitations. DR is not the limiting factor.