[Unsinkable II]

Since this thread has come full circle back to size, I looked up the OM-D and compared it to the K-x on Camerasize.com... the OM-D is a whopping 1.5mm narrower and 1.9mm shorter.

Sure, it's about an inch thinner, but that comes at the expense of a good hand grip.

So, 3 years on, you can get a similarly sized camera with one stop less DOF control for twice the price. Oh, and it has less choice in lenses and they are generally more expensive.

[Jasvox]

...and at the expense of an OVF.

Jason

[Winder]

I would take the EVF of the OM-D over the penta-mirror OVF of the K-x.

The AF of the OM-D pretty much blows away the K-x in terms of speed and accuracy.

If sensor performance was the sole factor in determining a cameras value, then the D800 would sell for more than the D4, and the K-5 would sell for more than the 1DIV.

[audiobomber]

I would take the EVF of the OM-D over the penta-mirror OVF of the K-x.

The AF of the OM-D pretty much blows away the K-x in terms of speed and accuracy.

If sensor performance was the sole factor in determining a cameras value, then the D800 would sell for more than the D4, and the K-5 would sell for more than the 1DIV.

I really hate EVF's. I wasn't happy with the K-x viewfinder, adding an O-ME53 made all the difference. I don't have trouble with AF speed or accuracy. I rarely miss focus, and I'm not sure what you mean by speed. Do you mean how fast it can move the lens, or that it hunts? It certainly locks focus better than my K20D in dim lighting. I had a K-5 for a couple of weeks and didn't notice any difference in AF vs the K-x.

Anyway, the K-x is not the comparator for the Olympus. The K-x was mentioned because it matches the Oly in size and performance. The price comparator is the K-5 II. If size is your most important criterion, then you're all set with the OM-D5.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

So, 3 years on, you can get a similarly sized camera with one stop less DOF control for twice the price.

Incorrect. First, the difference between APS-C and MFT is 2/3 of a stop, not 1 stop. Second, MFT system offers lenses that are one stop faster than APS-C lenses. Net result - more DOF control than APS-C and not as much of a need to shoot at high ISO.

[Rondec]

Incorrect. First, the difference between APS-C and MFT is 2/3 of a stop, not 1 stop. Second, MFT system offers lenses that are one stop faster than APS-C lenses. Net result - more DOF control than APS-C and not as much of a need to shoot at high ISO.

I am trying to figure out where these "one stop faster than APS-C lenses" comment comes from. Currently my zooms are DA *16-50 f2.8, 50-135 f2.8. As far as I can tell, the only f2 zoom Olympus has is the 14-35 f2 and it costs north of 2000 dollars. My primes are 15mm f4, 31mm f1.8, 55mm f1.4, 77mm f1.8, and 100mm f2.8 macro. I just don't see that Olympus has equivalent focal length primes that are "one stop faster."

Olympus has some fast, nice lenses, but you do pay for them, too.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

I am trying to figure out where these "one stop faster than APS-C lenses" comment comes from.

From the Voigtlander Nokton f/0.95 lenses. Their APS-C equivalents would be 24/1.3 and 35/1.3.

In terms of f/2 zooms, Olympus had not only the 14-35/2 but also the 35-100/2. They also offered a 150/2. I expect them to bring such designs back now that they are moving towards offering higher end products.

We are talking about DOF here, not price. And there is really not much that APS-C has to offer here over MFT.

I am just tired of hearing how great APS-C is over MFT. APS-C has some advantages, but MFT has some advantages too and I am not talking about size. There is no clear cut choice as in between these formats and FF.

[Jonathan Mac]

Incorrect. First, the difference between APS-C and MFT is 2/3 of a stop, not 1 stop. Second, MFT system offers lenses that are one stop faster than APS-C lenses. Net result - more DOF control than APS-C and not as much of a need to shoot at high ISO.

Cost of Oly 14-35 f/2 = 1800 GBP
Cost of Pentax 16-50 f/2.8 = 800 GBP

As equivalents to 35mm, the Pentax is also 4mm wider & 5mm longer, and also smaller. I can't imagine that Olympus have sold more than a handful of these lenses as they cost more than the FF equivalents,

The difference between the two comes down to 1/3 of a stop in favour of the Oly, but for that you pay an extra 1000 GBP and get a bigger, heavier lens with less range. For the price of a 4/3 body and the 14-35 you could buy a FF body and a Tamron 28-75 and you'd have a far more flexible setup, albeit without the build quality of the Oly lens. If you want to stay with APS-C, there are many fast primes, new or legacy, available for increased DoF control, and with a more manageable 1.5 crop factor, rather than two.

I don't want to give the impression I'm against the 4/3 system, but it's silly to argue that it's weaknesses are strengths. It has it's strengths but it's only now beginning to play to them.

[Winder]

I really hate EVF's. I wasn't happy with the K-x viewfinder, adding an O-ME53 made all the difference. I don't have trouble with AF speed or accuracy. I rarely miss focus, and I'm not sure what you mean by speed. Do you mean how fast it can move the lens, or that it hunts? It certainly locks focus better than my K20D in dim lighting. I had a K-5 for a couple of weeks and didn't notice any difference in AF vs the K-x.

Anyway, the K-x is not the comparator for the Olympus. The K-x was mentioned because it matches the Oly in size and performance. The price comparator is the K-5 II. If size is your most important criterion, then you're all set with the OM-D5.

I'm not a fan of the current EVF technology, and it has been a long time since I looked through the K-x VF, but I really did not like it. Honestly the K-5 VF is really smaller and darker than I like. The EVF on the OM-D is better only because of the flexibility and the ability to control brightness.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Cost...

I see the talk has shifted away from DOF once it became clear that APS-C does not offer an advantage. Now the argument is that MFT offers too little an advantage at too high a cost.

Even this cost argument doesn't fly because the Noktons and lenses like the 12/2 or 77/1.8 are priced very reasonably for the quality they offer.

If you want to stay with APS-C, there are many fast primes, new or legacy

Yes, but all those legacy lenses would work better on a FF camera. Since you started talking about cost, a 5DII now costs $1800 new from B&H (offer ends Oct. 27). It takes Pentax lenses too. So, again, what is the point of APS-C? It doesn't have any must-have dedicated lenses. All the DA Limiteds are slow so you're not going to win any thin DOF arguments with them. They're not even small anymore compared to MFT lenses. Any fast lens you can get for APS-C will usually be a FF lens, so why waste its capabilities on an APS-C sensor? (I've used Pentax lenses for this argument because Pentax has the most interesting APS-C DSLR system on the market)

I don't want to give the impression I'm against the 4/3 system, but it's silly to argue that it's weaknesses are strengths. It has it's strengths but it's only now beginning to play to them.

What you just said actually applies better to APS-C. At least Olympus has provided advantages for this format with their f/2 lenses. APS-C is starting from scratch for the third time in its troubled history.

I can kick APS-C in the teeth all day. But that is not my point. My point is simply that APS-C, with its current lineup of dedicated lenses cannot show any superiority over MFT. Perhaps a new system like Fuji X will exploit the format properly, but as far as APS-C in DSLRs goes, it was handicapped from the start. It never had a chance and it will never get another one again.

[Unsinkable II]

There is a definite advantage in performance and cost.

Take a typical everyday-type configuration for an enthusiast of a body with a fast zoom. My K-x with my Tamron 17-50/2.8 cost a grand total of US$700 combined. The Oly OM-D and the Panny 12-35/2.8 are US$2100.

So in M43 land you pay thrice the price for similar performance and less DOF control. And the K-x/Tammy pairing would have given 2.5 years of photos while waiting for the Oly/Panny set to even become available.

Also, APS-C allows us to use FF lenses (with autofocus when applicable), and someday there will be the upgrade path to use those lenses on a FF body. With M43 there is no upgrade path.

[Jonathan Mac]

I see the talk has shifted away from DOF once it became clear that APS-C does not offer an advantage. Now the argument is that MFT offers too little an advantage at too high a cost.

Even this cost argument doesn't fly because the Noktons and lenses like the 12/2 or 77/1.8 are priced very reasonably for the quality they offer.

Yes, but all those legacy lenses would work better on a FF camera. Since you started talking about cost, a 5DII now costs $1800 new from B&H (offer ends Oct. 27). It takes Pentax lenses too. So, again, what is the point of APS-C? It doesn't have any must-have dedicated lenses. All the DA Limiteds are slow so you're not going to win any thin DOF arguments with them. They're not even small anymore compared to MFT lenses. Any fast lens you can get for APS-C will usually be a FF lens, so why waste its capabilities on an APS-C sensor? (I've used Pentax lenses for this argument because Pentax has the most interesting APS-C DSLR system on the market)

What you just said actually applies better to APS-C. At least Olympus has provided advantages for this format with their f/2 lenses. APS-C is starting from scratch for the third time in its troubled history.

I can kick APS-C in the teeth all day. But that is not my point. My point is simply that APS-C, with its current lineup of dedicated lenses cannot show any superiority over MFT. Perhaps a new system like Fuji X will exploit the format properly, but as far as APS-C in DSLRs goes, it was handicapped from the start. It never had a chance and it will never get another one again.

OK, I give up. I can only read so many posts of someone arguing that black is white.

[taurus9]

Would you say a more appropriate comparison would be to price a K5 with a Pentax 16-50 with the weatherproofing?

From B&H:

K5 = $879 US
Pentax 16-50mm - $1421 US (!)

Now the difference is in favour of the EM-5. You could argue to buy a used 16-50mm but then it's not quite like for like is it? You could substitute the K5 for the K30 and save $80.

You can use FF lenses on M43 using the myriad of lens adapters. Granted, it has a different 'look' than originally intended, but you do have the flexibility to use Pentax K mount lenses on a M43 body if you so choose.

Anyway, all this APS-C vs M43 talk seems to take a life of the APS-C vs FF debate. They all take good pics. I would not choose a camera based on sensor size.

There is a definite advantage in performance and cost.

Take a typical everyday-type configuration for an enthusiast of a body with a fast zoom. My K-x with my Tamron 17-50/2.8 cost a grand total of US$700 combined. The Oly OM-D and the Panny 12-35/2.8 are US$2100.

So in M43 land you pay thrice the price for similar performance and less DOF control. And the K-x/Tammy pairing would have given 2.5 years of photos while waiting for the Oly/Panny set to even become available.

Also, APS-C allows us to use FF lenses (with autofocus when applicable), and someday there will be the upgrade path to use those lenses on a FF body. With M43 there is no upgrade path.

[audiobomber]

Check the ISO sensitivity graph for the E-M5 at DXOMark. Olympus cheats the ISO rating by an entire stop.

• When set to ISO 200, the actual iSO is 107
• When set to ISO 25600, the actual iSO is 11848
• All points in between are similar, Olympus has inflated ISO performance by a stop

This shows that Olympus is a disreputable company (surprise, surprise). Pentax stays very close to actual ISO. To compare E-M5 images to Pentax, you have to compare the Pentax image at one stop lower. Reviewers and consumers are being hoodwinked, which is exactly what Olympus intends.

[Rondec]

Would you say a more appropriate comparison would be to price a K5 with a Pentax 16-50 with the weatherproofing?

From B&H:

K5 = $879 US
Pentax 16-50mm - $1421 US (!)

Now the difference is in favour of the EM-5. You could argue to buy a used 16-50mm but then it's not quite like for like is it? You could substitute the K5 for the K30 and save $80.

You can use FF lenses on M43 using the myriad of lens adapters. Granted, it has a different 'look' than originally intended, but you do have the flexibility to use Pentax K mount lenses on a M43 body if you so choose.

Anyway, all this APS-C vs M43 talk seems to take a life of the APS-C vs FF debate. They all take good pics. I would not choose a camera based on sensor size.

Well, I think the point was that the kx sensor is similar in performance to the OM-D sensor, while the K5 sensor is a step in front. In addition, if you call B and H you can still get the 16-50 for 950 new (sure, you shouldn't have to, but at least it's a back door way of getting the lens for less than the MAP on line). It is available on line from Amazon for 1050, if you don't want to bother making a call. Just saying...