[The Squirrel Mafia]

One final note about the E-M1 with the 12-40 f/2.8 PRO lens. The combo weighs about the same as my K-50 with the DA-L 18-55mm WR kit lens. The DA-L lens obviously has nothing on the PRO lens as far as IQ goes, but my Pentax 35mm f/2.4 & 50mm f/1.8 primes do & even then, this PRO lens seems even sharper & it's about as good as my primes with a zoom range to boot. It's probably the lack of AA filter on the E-M1. The zoom range is equal to about 16-53mm in APS-C talk & 24-80 in full frame talk. In other words, it's pretty darn light.

As far as I can tell in RawTherapee & DXO 9, the IQ is about the same as the K-50 all the way to ISO 6400. Sometimes the Olympus images look a bit better. After ISO 6400, the K-50 seems to have less color noise, but the Olympus seems to retain a bit more detail. The Olympus files are more granier. At ISO 25600 the Olympus is hopeless when compared to the K-50, but that's a given. Like I said, I try not to shoot past ISO 6400 most of the time. I usually try to shoot low ISO as much as I can & the 5 axis IBIS in the Olympus is pretty dang awesome at letting me do that.

I will be keeping an eye out on Pentax & Olympus offers this season. I definitely want some more glass if I stay with Pentax & if the K-3II gets a price cut, rebate, incentive, or similar, maybe I'll get one. On the other hand, if Olympus throws some pretty great offers, I might just hop onto the m43 system. The upcoming E-M1 Mark II seems to be a monster of a camera. I tend to stay a generation or 2 behind at times to get the better deals & the E-M1 seems to be in that deal category right now. I'd eventually get the Mark II when that one is about to be phased out by the Mark III or whatever replaces it.

I'll be returning the camera & lens to my dad tomorrow. I has a sad. Hahaha!

[audiobomber]

Advising people on the basis of absolutely zero experience with an item - so you say, anyway - while claiming that no experience is needed is a lot of things, but science isn't one of them - and advice isn't one of them either. I'm tired of this.

So only people who have used the gear can comment on it?

The science was not mine, I linked my references.

If someone told me that his D810 and Tamron 24-70mm outperforms my K-3 Sigma 17-50, I would agree with him. Larger sensor, more megapixels, no blur filter, strong lens. Those add up to superior performance.

[UncleVanya]

I would suggest that making claims based on DXO without direct experience is like trying to explain colors by putting a blind persons hands in finger paint. Megapixels don't matter. Look up the Da 15 on the k-3, Is it considered markedly inferior to the 17-50? Of course not. Those numbers are far less helpful than actual experience with files and prints. Who cares if the da 35 is sharper than the da 40 per DXO? I've owned both and I sold the da 35 and kept the da 40.

Numbers about lenses fail to capture enough data and quantify it. They concentrate the comparison on very small aspects of lens performance. What about flare? What about bokeh? What about the colors? How about the way the lens renders?

This is why your opinion born out of reading data and not shooting is less useful than you want it to be.

[awscreo]

So only people who have used the gear can comment on it?

The science was not mine, I linked my references.

If someone told me that his D810 and Tamron 24-70mm outperforms my K-3 Sigma 17-50, I would agree with him. Larger sensor, more megapixels, no blur filter, strong lens. Those add up to superior performance.

All I'm saying is that maybe using a camera and working with raws is not a bad idea before completely dismissing the entire system.

Also, go to dxomark, select lenses and select Pentax and Olympus. Scroll down, see what lenses ratings are showing. I dunno if it's me but seems Olympus and Pentax lenses are rated about the same, with zuiko 75 1.8 being at the top. BTW, considering that mft bodies are generally lower mp, it looks like a more impressive result too, meaning they can resolve higher % of their mp count.

---

Last edited by Racer X 69; 10-29-2016 at 07:13 PM.

[Rondec]

I would suggest that making claims based on DXO without direct experience is like trying to explain colors by putting a blind persons hands in finger paint. Megapixels don't matter. Look up the Da 15 on the k-3, Is it considered markedly inferior to the 17-50? Of course not. Those numbers are far less helpful than actual experience with files and prints. Who cares if the da 35 is sharper than the da 40 per DXO? I've owned both and I sold the da 35 and kept the da 40.

Numbers about lenses fail to capture enough data and quantify it. They concentrate the comparison on very small aspects of lens performance. What about flare? What about bokeh? What about the colors? How about the way the lens renders?

This is why your opinion born out of reading data and not shooting is less useful than you want it to be.

There is something to be said for trying better glass before moving to another system. The Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is very well thought of and quite cheap and would be a significant upgrade over his current lens.

With four thirds in most settings there probably won't be a significant difference. Just like there isn't a big difference in many settings between my K3 and K-1, but when you are pushing the extremes in dynamic range, iso, etc. the bigger sensors will tend to perform better. DXO Mark puts numbers on it, but it makes a lot of sense. If the OP is not pushing those extremes, than a smaller sensor camera/slower aperture lenses are both ways of decreasing gear size.

[Racer X 69]

OK girls.

Let's keep the discussion on track and refrain from personal sniping.

There clearly are divergent viewpoints about the value or lack thereof to be had from product reviews, and how that may or may no allow someone to contribute to the conversation. We all are able to contribute, and those contributions are expected to generally follow the subject. Most of them have, but somehow Miss Communication showed up. Get used to it, we are a diverse group here, with people from many cultures, who don't all have English as their primary language.

Sometimes we may misunderstand the intent of a post.

I have tried to clean up your squabbling and restore some semblance of a polite discussion to his thread. Forgive me if I have butchered your posts. I have spent the last hour so on this, and Mrs. Racer is mad because I have chores to do that aren't getting done.

Now kiss and make up.

[wildman]

For god's sake just buy what you want. You will find out soon enough if the gear is suitable for your purposes or not.

[Colorado CJ]

Just got a new (to me) 12-40 f2.8 Pro. Here's a quick sample shot, just a jpg, not a raw, shot wide open at f2.8 and 40mm. Click over to see a larger image in better quality

[BigMackCam]

That is remarkable for a wide-open shot. Is that the full image, or a crop? The reason I ask is that the detail at the edges looks excellent too. If that's an uncropped image, I'm even more impressed with that lens...

[normhead]

You sure see the effect the extra DoF from the smaller sensor has. I probably have 100 images similar, where not nearly as much of the dogs face is in focus, taken with APS_c.

[wildman]

Don't underestimate that small sensor.
Taken at a distance of about 40 feet...

[Colorado CJ]

That is remarkable for a wide-open shot. Is that the full image, or a crop? The reason I ask is that the detail at the edges looks excellent too. If that's an uncropped image, I'm even more impressed with that lens...

It isn't a crop. The Olympus 12-40 F2.8 Pro is known to be EXTREMELY sharp throughout its zoom range wide open. Sharp to the edges.

I usually shoot with a Nikon D600 full frame camera with sharp prime lenses. I am extremely impressed with the little OMD EM10 and this new lens.

I bought the Olympus to keep my pack lighter when I hike at high elevations. My last hike I took my 4x5 large format camera and a near 50 lb pack up to 13,000 ft. I vowed after that hike to get some lighter equipment.

[Rondec]

I hate to mention equivalence, but Norm is right. Shooting with f2.8 on micro four thirds is going to give you the same depth of field as f5.6 on full frame. That will tend to make your images look sharper purely because more of what you are shooting is in focus. Shoot a 16-50 at f4 on a K3 and results will be pretty similar, for what it is worth.

Still, there are plenty of situations (landscape is one) where having more depth of field is crucial and if you are shooting at f8 on your K50 all of the time, then having the ability to open up a lens to f2.8 is fairly unimportant.

[awscreo]

I hate to mention equivalence, but Norm is right. Shooting with f2.8 on micro four thirds is going to give you the same depth of field as f5.6 on full frame. That will tend to make your images look sharper purely because more of what you are shooting is in focus. Shoot a 16-50 at f4 on a K3 and results will be pretty similar, for what it is worth.

Still, there are plenty of situations (landscape is one) where having more depth of field is crucial and if you are shooting at f8 on your K50 all of the time, then having the ability to open up a lens to f2.8 is fairly unimportant.

Dof is larger, but exposure is 2.8, meaning higher shutter speeds and lower iso.

Also, sweet spot of mft lenses is usually around f4, so they get sharp across the frame faster than full frame ones (in general).

There are pros and cons to the system, just like any other.

[Rondec]

Dof is larger, but exposure is 2.8, meaning higher shutter speeds and lower iso.

Also, sweet spot of mft lenses is usually around f4, so they get sharp across the frame faster than full frame ones (in general).

There are pros and cons to the system, just like any other.

The whole point of equivalence is supposed to be that you can bump iso on a larger sensor and get similar dynamic range. I have been hammered this quite a bit over time, but it is true that you have your choice -- shoot wider aperture with better low iso performance or stop down and get same depth of field with equivalent iso performance.