Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 125

Thread: E-5 vs 5dMk II - settled for me for now

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,128
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    9 (100%)

    Default E-5 vs 5dMk II - settled for me for now

    Some of you know I periodically toy with the idea of moving to a FF camera. So when DPR announced some update to its studio setup compararison applet, I took a look and saw they had 5DII samples on. I downloaded the RAWs for the 2 cameras and developed to get as much quality as I could out of each one, tweaked exposure, etc. paramterers, cropped and resized for printing at 17x22, did some output sharpening and printed 8x10 crops. Well, the print from the Canon was noticeably better -- as long as your nose wasn't more than 9-12" from the print. In terms of on the wall prints, indistinuishable. The Canon does have cleaner shadows (up close, again) and more dynamic range (some high areas that blew on the E-5 file did not blow on the 5DII file). But nothing to warranty jumping ship. Maybe if I was printing a lot larger or low light performance mattered to me, but I'm not and it doesn't.
    ODM
    ----------------
    Recent photos: http://www.ahfairley.com/gallery/index.html
    http://www.facebook.com/album.php?ai...2&l=fad9c02a1f
    E-10, E-M5, 20mm, PZ 14-42mm

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Posts
    2,354
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 12 Times in 9 Posts
    Feedback Score
    10 (100%)

    Default Re: E-5 vs 5dMk II - settled for me for now

    Quote Originally Posted by olddigiman View Post
    Some of you know I periodically toy with the idea of moving to a FF camera. So when DPR announced some update to its studio setup compararison applet, I took a look and saw they had 5DII samples on. I downloaded the RAWs for the 2 cameras and developed to get as much quality as I could out of each one, tweaked exposure, etc. paramterers, cropped and resized for printing at 17x22, did some output sharpening and printed 8x10 crops. Well, the print from the Canon was noticeably better -- as long as your nose wasn't more than 9-12" from the print. In terms of on the wall prints, indistinuishable. The Canon does have cleaner shadows (up close, again) and more dynamic range (some high areas that blew on the E-5 file did not blow on the 5DII file). But nothing to warranty jumping ship. Maybe if I was printing a lot larger or low light performance mattered to me, but I'm not and it doesn't.



    I could have told you that. I use both the 5dmk11 and the E-5.
    The difference is I use two Zeiss primes on the Canon and that is where the difference lies.......but only for the purpose I use them for. Keep in mind it fast approaches over 4,000 to 5,000 bucks for a body and lens in those combos.
    The two cameras are apples and oranges. The E-5 is a much easier to use item and built far far better.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,135
    Thanks
    58
    Thanked 22 Times in 17 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0
    Real Name
    Tom

    Default Re: E-5 vs 5dMk II - settled for me for now

    I am of the opinion that the E-5 is not good enough, you might a well as go all out. In my view, that means medium format. Unfortunately, that is rather pricey.

    Not very helpful advise, I know. Sorry.
    flickr | "God made the integers; all else is the work of man" - Leopold Kronecker

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Albany, NY
    Posts
    632
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)

    Default Re: E-5 vs 5dMk II - settled for me for now

    Quote Originally Posted by tomsi42 View Post
    I am of the opinion that the E-5 is not good enough, you might a well as go all out. In my view, that means medium format. Unfortunately, that is rather pricey.

    Not very helpful advise, I know. Sorry.
    The problem with medium format is that it doesn't do any good for low light photography. The lenses are rather slow, and they don't go above ISO 800 the last time I checked. So depending on what you want to shoot a FF may be better than medium format, and a 4/3rds might be undistinguishable worse.
    E-30, 7-14, 14-35, 35-100, 50-200, 50mm f2, EC-14, mecablitz 58AF-1, Feisol CT-3342 tripod, Photo Clam PC-48NS ball head

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,278
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)

    Default Re: E-5 vs 5dMk II - settled for me for now

    I have printed panos up to 18x48 with the E5 with really good results. Just how much is enough? Some of boils down to technique in the field as well. You can't make chicken salad out of chicken s--t.
    If I thought of a system that would eventually go away it would be FF. As smaller sensors improve there really won't be any reason for the extra cost and size to justify using it.
    I have thought about moving to FF as well but now that I see what I am getting with the E5 I think about it a lot less.
    I have had a couple of Internet friends comment that my pictures have improved.That's proof enough for me.


  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,135
    Thanks
    58
    Thanked 22 Times in 17 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0
    Real Name
    Tom

    Default Re: E-5 vs 5dMk II - settled for me for now

    Quote Originally Posted by okla View Post
    The problem with medium format is that it doesn't do any good for low light photography. The lenses are rather slow, and they don't go above ISO 800 the last time I checked. So depending on what you want to shoot a FF may be better than medium format, and a 4/3rds might be undistinguishable worse.
    Low light photography is a point. The new Phase One IQ180 improves that a bit, I believe.

    For low light photography, I would recommend Nikon - the D3s is the king of low light. It's only 12MP, but they looks great.
    flickr | "God made the integers; all else is the work of man" - Leopold Kronecker

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Central valley of Oahu
    Posts
    631
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 3 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: E-5 vs 5dMk II - settled for me for now

    So what was the question? Specifically. Or was that your latest tentative thoughts, and presented for gathering of input.
    Now if you disclosed that your individual output for your ISO shooting was not really satisfying,- and fell short of what you seek- then the answer is clear and even compelling.

    I even get, -now don't tell-, usable if output from my E-1 a "shameful" 5.5 megapixels and Kodak CCD. Not super but usable.

    However, fact is that I drive a 1989 Toyota Camry, gets me around lately.

    Comment ODM: Watch out for Die Lorelei of the camera world. They are cute though. gotta say that..
    Hey,Can you rent one of these Canons for a weekend. And really see what gives. For your yourself that is...I sens you weakening, could be wrong..

    Aloha,
    Gerry

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,545
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)

    Default Re: E-5 vs 5dMk II - settled for me for now

    Quote Originally Posted by okla View Post
    The problem with medium format is that it doesn't do any good for low light photography. The lenses are rather slow, and they don't go above ISO 800 the last time I checked. So depending on what you want to shoot a FF may be better than medium format, and a 4/3rds might be undistinguishable worse.
    Medium Format is best used in the studio with proper lighting.

    Between Full Frame and Four-Thirds in low light... well, you have higher ISO counts on Full Frame, and you have broader DOF (less need to stop down) and lenses better optimized for wide-open shooting. Neither is ultimately better... but I will say that with the advances of the E-5 and E-PL2 in sensor processing, the high-ISO advantage of Full Frame is quickly dwindling...

    Then there's Auto Focus in low light... well, those more experienced will know that you'll do it a lot faster if you don't even try Auto Focus and just reach for the Manual Focus ring. You could have perfect focus before your AF-dependent peers have found the AF button in the dark, lol. However, Full Frame tends to still have faster AF, but that difference is once again slowly dwindling. CDAF on Micro Four-Thirds is getting faster, and although not as quick or easy as Manual Focus through a Pentaprism viewfinder (ie, pro-grade DSLR like the Olympus E-5 or Nikon D3) it is more accurate in the dark than Auto-Focus through PDAF. So which system wins there? Both Full Frame and Four-Thirds, but not Micro Four-Thirds.
    Olympus E-3 | Olympus E-PL2 PEN | Olympus E-PM1 PEN | Zuiko ED 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 SWD | Zuiko 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 | Vivitar 100mm f/2.8 Macro | Carl Zeiss Sonnar 135mm f/2.8 | Konica Hexanon 50mm f/1.4 | Konica Hexanon 85mm f/1.8 | G.Zuiko 50mm f/1.4 | Zuiko 35mm f/3.5 Macro | Zuiko 25mm f/2.8 | KMZ Jupiter-3 50mm f/1.5 | E.Zuiko 200mm f/4 | Zuiko 75-150mm f/4 | Olympus EC-14 teleconverter | VF-2 and VF-3 Viewfinders | EMA-1 Mic Adapter | Olympus FL-36R and FL-50R speedlights

    cyclopsphoto.ca

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Niederwil SO, Switzerland
    Posts
    72
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Real Name
    Martin Muehlemann

    Default Re: E-5 vs 5dMk II - settled for me for now

    Hi everyone

    I just have been going through this too. I used to have an Alpha 850 with all Zeiss lenses. I switched back to Olympus.

    I have an E-5 with all SHG lenses. I got a very tempting offer for a 5dMk2.

    In the end, after reading endless reviews and user experiences and holding one in my hand for a day with a 24-105L I cam to the following conclusion.

    - IQ is much better, much more detail can be seen, for sure. (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/comp...d2-7d-5d-d300/)
    - Viewfinder is much brighter
    - Much better high ISO performance

    On the other hand, and thats where my decision comes from.

    - Only one single AF cross-sensor (f2.8)
    - 9 sensors in total, very central distributed over the frame
    - AI-Servo (C-AF) is much worse than 7D and very uncomnon for Canon
    - Low-Light focusing issues. According to the reviews worse than the A900 and this was one of the K.O. criterias for me to separate from Sony FF.
    - Weather sealing is a big joke. Officially you may expose the camera from max of 3min in rain.

    Some good user reviews here
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...IIreview.shtml
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...0-5dmkii.shtml


    My conslusion. Fullframe for me would still be nice, but at this point, neither Nikon nor Canon have the right system for me. D800 and 5D MK3 I will be looking at, once released.

    Cheers
    Martin
    Sony A7S | A7 II | FE 16-35Z OSS | FE 24-70Z OSS | FE 70-200G OSS | Sony 70-400G2 SSM | Minolta AF 24/2.8 RS | EF 100L IS Macro | Metabones Mark IV | LA-EA4 | Metz 52 AF-1

    Olympus E-M1 | mZuiko 12-40 f/2.8 | mZuiko 40-150 f/2.8 | HLD-7


    My pictures at FC

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    4,566
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 129 Times in 89 Posts
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Default Re: E-5 vs 5dMk II - settled for me for now

    Interesting thread and everything is a trade-off. In my case size. My camera cupboard now bulges. Interestingly to me, the weight has not been a problem which was what really worried me.
    I bought a used Canon1DMK3 and a couple of lenses, mainly for action shots using C-AF, and it has proved very good for this.
    But I have been surprised to find that it also works very well for other usage. In low light it is just so much EASIER to achieve equal images that took me a lot more work from 4/3. There is no doubt that a larger sensor does make life easier. This from a 1.3 crop sensor, not even full frame.
    I struggled all last year to get images of Tuis (dark birds) I was happy with from my E-3+150mmF2, the light often being a difficulty under a dark green canopy of trees. The first bird of the new season arrived today so I shot off a few in the usual gloom with pleasing results.
    See the link if you are interested. I did post them here but took them down because not that appropriate for here. I still have my Olympus gear to keep my hand in for the E-6, can't bring myself to move it on after all this time
    Cheers,
    Don

    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=38450605

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,135
    Thanks
    58
    Thanked 22 Times in 17 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0
    Real Name
    Tom

    Default Re: E-5 vs 5dMk II - settled for me for now

    Quote Originally Posted by Neddog View Post
    Medium Format is best used in the studio with proper lighting.
    I am not sure the guys over at The Luminous Landscape agrees with you

    Having tried a Hasselblad for a few seconds, I will say that they are best when combined a sturdy tripod. So studio makes sense, but I believe they can be great for landscapes also. But to large and heavy for me.

    The Pentax 645D and Leica S2 are more manageable, probably.
    flickr | "God made the integers; all else is the work of man" - Leopold Kronecker

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    PacNW
    Posts
    1,809
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    13 (100%)

    Default Re: E-5 vs 5dMk II - settled for me for now

    So far not mentioned. For me the attraction of FF would be the ability to use my shift lenses for architectural interiors. Some day I'll be able to afford an old 5D body.
    February Photos
    March photos

    Comments/criticisms are just my personal opinion and are meant to be constructive. Please feel free to do the same for me.


  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,206
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    22 (100%)

    Default Re: E-5 vs 5dMk II - settled for me for now

    Could use some input from my fellow 4/3s people. My daughter is almost done with college and it seems the best camera for her photography career is going to be C or N. She used Oly during college but the photographers she's talked to keep asking if she uses N or C. I'm going to sell my Oly equipment and help get her a Nikon. Do any of you know which Nikon she should go with? I'm going to see if I can find a used camera for her.

    One reason she might not have liked Oly was that I didn't let her take my good camera or lenses to college. I probably shouldn't have, but I sold my SHG glass and E3 while she was in school. All she used were the kit lenses. She did great work with them, but never saw Oly's true potential. I'm also going to let her research and decide which camera she needs, but just wanted your input as well so I don't make a mistake.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,545
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)

    Default Re: E-5 vs 5dMk II - settled for me for now

    Quote Originally Posted by finemom View Post
    Could use some input from my fellow 4/3s people. My daughter is almost done with college and it seems the best camera for her photography career is going to be C or N. She used Oly during college but the photographers she's talked to keep asking if she uses N or C. I'm going to sell my Oly equipment and help get her a Nikon. Do any of you know which Nikon she should go with? I'm going to see if I can find a used camera for her.
    Everybody asks me the same thing. They see my camera first, then they ask me if it's a Canon or Nikon, lol. I mean, it does say Olympus right on it, and on half my straps as well. How can you do anything but laugh at that?

    Quote Originally Posted by finemom View Post
    One reason she might not have liked Oly was that I didn't let her take my good camera or lenses to college. I probably shouldn't have, but I sold my SHG glass and E3 while she was in school. All she used were the kit lenses. She did great work with them, but never saw Oly's true potential. I'm also going to let her research and decide which camera she needs, but just wanted your input as well so I don't make a mistake.
    Now you're really paying for selling off the good Olympus gear, because Nikon and Canon gear is far more expensive to get anything of equivalent quality. xP

    I don't know my Nikon lenses too well, but some good Canon ones include the 24-70mm f/2.8L, 100mm f/2.8L macro, 70-200mm f/4L, and the 50mm f/1.4 (a very inexpensive way to start and replace your kit lenses with something fast). You will mostly want to stick with EF lenses and not EF-S. EF-S is for APS-C bodies only, and are generally limited to the lower-grade lenses (of course that's a generalization). The same thing with Nikon lenses, you want FX (full frame) instead of DX (APS-C). Whether you have a Full Frame body or APS-C, they will both take EF (Canon system) and FX (Nikon system) lenses.

    For bodies, the Canon 7D is pretty good, as is the Canon 1Ds series. The Rebels are garbage, and the 5D's are garbage for their class. They're still a higher class camera than the bulk of Canons though, so in that light they're pretty decent. The Canon 5DII is way cheaper than the Nikon 3Dx if you want that super-high megapixel count. The entire 3D series of Nikon bodies is very good, and so is the Nikon D700. Nikon bodies have the best high ISO performance.

    I tend to find Canon systems to produce redder colors, and Nikon systems to be bluer (likewise, Olympus tends to be more yellow but has the most natural color rendition of them all). Nikon images look flatter to me with more overcast colors, but Canon can produce some decent definition if using quality L glass. With both systems you do have to watch out for cheap glass... Zuiko glass on Olympus cameras are all built to a pretty high standard, even the kit glass. Canon and Nikon both have some very good lenses, but also some very bad ones. The old Canon lenses were particularly bad (like the 18-55mm non-IS), but most of them have been drastically improved since then (like the 18-55mm IS or the 18-200mm and the 18-135mm). Please keep in mind that these are all generalizations and there are way more factors to the system to take into account.
    Last edited by Neddog; 05-17-2011 at 12:01 PM.
    Olympus E-3 | Olympus E-PL2 PEN | Olympus E-PM1 PEN | Zuiko ED 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 SWD | Zuiko 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 | Vivitar 100mm f/2.8 Macro | Carl Zeiss Sonnar 135mm f/2.8 | Konica Hexanon 50mm f/1.4 | Konica Hexanon 85mm f/1.8 | G.Zuiko 50mm f/1.4 | Zuiko 35mm f/3.5 Macro | Zuiko 25mm f/2.8 | KMZ Jupiter-3 50mm f/1.5 | E.Zuiko 200mm f/4 | Zuiko 75-150mm f/4 | Olympus EC-14 teleconverter | VF-2 and VF-3 Viewfinders | EMA-1 Mic Adapter | Olympus FL-36R and FL-50R speedlights

    cyclopsphoto.ca

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Van Nuys, CA
    Posts
    663
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)

    Default Re: E-5 vs 5dMk II - settled for me for now

    When someone asks me if I shoot C or N cameras, my answer is usually something along these lines:

    "Neither. I looked into a number of brands before I bought, and I found that the Olympus DSLRs were the best fit for my needs.

    I shoot a lot of long telephoto shots, and the slightly-smaller sensor gives me more magnification at the same focal length, without sacrificing image quality. That means that my lenses can be smaller and lighter for the same reach. The four-to-three aspect ratio means I don't have to discard as much of my image data to crop to common print sizes. I've got great weather-sealing and the best built-in sensor-dust-removal system in the industry, so I've never yet had to manually clean my sensors to get rid of dust spots, despite shooting regularly out in the desert. In-body image stabilization means I don't have to keep buying the same feature over and over in every lens (and it makes the lenses slightly lighter, too).

    In any case, the various name brands of cameras are all pretty good, and for 90% of what most people, including me, shoot, any camera system would work just fine. When you dig down into the details, I know that each system has its own strengths and weaknesses, so I'm always curious to talk to folks who chose something different, to hear their perspectives.

    What prompted you to buy into the camera system that you did?"
    Cameras: Yes.
    Lenses: Yes.
    Lighting: Sometimes, depending upon needs.
    Misc.: Other stuff, as needed.

    CrayonPhotos.com ... pictures that draw you in.
    Follow me on Twitter.
    Like me on Facebook.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    560
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    11 (100%)

    Default Re: E-5 vs 5dMk II - settled for me for now

    I swapped my E-3, 14-54mm, 50mm, 9-18 & 50-200mm for a Nikon D700 with Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 & 70-200mm f2.8 at the time it cost me about $800.00 to make the switch.

    I'm quite happy with D700 & though the Tamron glass isn't known for it's AF capabilities I've found it better at tracking and maintaining focus than my Olympus gear and the image quality is quite good. I also now spend a lot more time shooting with Nikon primes 50mm f1.4 & 35mm f2 lenses the lowlight shooting abilities of the D700 are great.

    I miss the articulating LCD screen, weather sealing on the lenses and some of the button placement of the E-3. The D700 with the two Tamron lenses weighs about 1/2 lb. more than the E-3 with the 14-54 & 50-200 but life is full of compromises.

    I just placed an order for a Panasonic G3 to be my lightweight kit.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    941
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    43 (100%)

    Default Re: E-5 vs 5dMk II - settled for me for now

    Quote Originally Posted by Hudsonhites View Post
    I swapped my E-3, 14-54mm, 50mm, 9-18 & 50-200mm for a Nikon D700 with Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 & 70-200mm f2.8 at the time it cost me about $800.00 to make the switch.

    I'm quite happy with D700 & though the Tamron glass isn't known for it's AF capabilities I've found it better at tracking and maintaining focus than my Olympus gear and the image quality is quite good. I also now spend a lot more time shooting with Nikon primes 50mm f1.4 & 35mm f2 lenses the lowlight shooting abilities of the D700 are great.

    I miss the articulating LCD screen, weather sealing on the lenses and some of the button placement of the E-3. The D700 with the two Tamron lenses weighs about 1/2 lb. more than the E-3 with the 14-54 & 50-200 but life is full of compromises.

    I just placed an order for a Panasonic G3 to be my lightweight kit.
    Right now is a very difficult time to make the switch, as there are almost zero new D700's for sale, and most if not all used D700's are being sold for new prices (or more). The same goes for Nikon's f/2.8 zooms and any new lenses, and the TC20EIII is all but impossible to find in the US at anything close to normal prices.

    Cheers,
    Tim

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,206
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    22 (100%)

    Default Re: E-5 vs 5dMk II - settled for me for now

    Thanks for the input. I personally can totally justify an Oly system. I just can't expect my daughter to fight the good fight on her own. She needs to work with a photographer and could possible share lenses if she has the same camera system.

    Some might supply equipment so maybe I should just keep the Oly system for awhile longer. I suggested she try using my gh2 with it's excellent primes, which I'm sure won't impress any pros due to it's small size. Maybe I'll keep working on that suggestion.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,545
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)

    Default Re: E-5 vs 5dMk II - settled for me for now

    Quote Originally Posted by finemom View Post
    Some might supply equipment so maybe I should just keep the Oly system for awhile longer. I suggested she try using my gh2 with it's excellent primes, which I'm sure won't impress any pros due to it's small size. Maybe I'll keep working on that suggestion.
    I admit that size can impress on sight, but personally I'm impressed by lenses and glass, not bodies. My PEN camera makes my lenses look even more impressive if anything, lol. But that's only because I use Four-Thirds lenses. Micro Four-Thirds lenses tend to be quite miniature.
    Olympus E-3 | Olympus E-PL2 PEN | Olympus E-PM1 PEN | Zuiko ED 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 SWD | Zuiko 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 | Vivitar 100mm f/2.8 Macro | Carl Zeiss Sonnar 135mm f/2.8 | Konica Hexanon 50mm f/1.4 | Konica Hexanon 85mm f/1.8 | G.Zuiko 50mm f/1.4 | Zuiko 35mm f/3.5 Macro | Zuiko 25mm f/2.8 | KMZ Jupiter-3 50mm f/1.5 | E.Zuiko 200mm f/4 | Zuiko 75-150mm f/4 | Olympus EC-14 teleconverter | VF-2 and VF-3 Viewfinders | EMA-1 Mic Adapter | Olympus FL-36R and FL-50R speedlights

    cyclopsphoto.ca

  20. #20
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Berkeley Heights, NJ
    Posts
    3,459
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)

    Default Re: E-5 vs 5dMk II - settled for me for now

    If I were buying Nikon now, I'd go for either a D7000 or D5100. A D700 would be very nice too, but like Timskis6 says, the supplies are very tight ATM on the "pro-level" stuff.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Sibenik, Croatia
    Posts
    854
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Default Re: E-5 vs 5dMk II - settled for me for now

    This is the worst time to be buying "pro" or semi-pro FF gear.

    Prices have never been higher, cameras on the market are quite old and due for a replacement.

    You shell out $2.500+, and a few months later something like D800 or 5Dmk3 comes out and value of your camera plummets 50%
    Cheers,
    Marin

    E-M5, 7.5mm fisheye, 12mm, 45mm, various flashes and misc.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,135
    Thanks
    58
    Thanked 22 Times in 17 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0
    Real Name
    Tom

    Default Re: E-5 vs 5dMk II - settled for me for now

    Quote Originally Posted by Mar View Post
    You shell out $2.500+, and a few months later something like D800 or 5Dmk3 comes out and value of your camera plummets 50%
    Which is the time to buy the D700 or 5D MkII at bargain prices.

    I find the C or N mania a bit boring, as the guys who shouts the most about C & N are usually clueless people. People who know what they are talking about usually asks why I am shooting Olympus (and now Panasonic). When I tell them why, they accept my explanations and (usually) agree with my thinking. Of course they have other needs and have chosen accordingly.
    flickr | "God made the integers; all else is the work of man" - Leopold Kronecker

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,206
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    22 (100%)

    Default Re: E-5 vs 5dMk II - settled for me for now

    I think maybe it's best to go for D7000 which is a newer camera and start to get better glass. That should last her until the replacement for D700 comes out and she can decide if she needs to upgrade or not. Or as suggested get a used D700 when the prices drop from their replacement. She's not out of school until December so I'll see if she gets a decent job for the summer before investing any money, although she has a very good prospect right now and I might need to move fast. I've told her how much heavier it's all going to be, but she doesn't care, she's young!

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    4,566
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 129 Times in 89 Posts
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Default Re: E-5 vs 5dMk II - settled for me for now

    Quote Originally Posted by Neddog View Post
    Now you're really paying for selling off the good Olympus gear, because Nikon and Canon gear is far more expensive to get anything of equivalent quality. xP
    Neddog,
    Just on one point, (I agree with the rest of your post), I think it can be misleading to take lens quality alone as the reason to get good images. This seems always to be overlooked-
    my main surprise has been that the body+lens combination is far more important for IQ than the lens itself. A lens like the Zuiko 150F2 creams most lenses in lab tests, but-
    for example, both the 70-200F4L and the 400mmF5.6L on a 1D3 body give me at least as good images as my 150mmF2 on my E-3 or E-PL1. I have tested them against each other. Even bokeh using the zoom is as nice as the 150mmF2. The smaller aperture of the Canon lenses has been no problem at all for focus or light, because the camera body compensates. Light is rarely an issue, even for fast subjects, crank up the iso, no problem. And both those lenses are relatively inexpensive. The total combination costs are not very different. (my 1D body I bought mint, used).
    Someone here mentioned dust. After 3 months including wind blown fine sand (which disabled my E-3 2 years ago at the same location), I have not had a speck of dust showing on an image. The dust buster operates at start-up and shut-down. I had believed that only Oly's dust control worked.
    There are other issues of course, such as size, water resistance (400mm is not), and others I'm sure, according to individual needs.
    I now have a more open mind than I used to.
    Cheers,
    Don

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Hokkaido, Japan
    Posts
    2,989
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: E-5 vs 5dMk II - settled for me for now

    Quote Originally Posted by Neddog View Post
     
    Now you're really paying for selling off the good Olympus gear, because Nikon and Canon gear is far more expensive to get anything of equivalent quality. xP

    Really? Finemom owned the SHG Zuikos and is now looking at Nikon. Some prices from B&H on an E-5 SHG kit vs. a D700 FF kit:

    E-5$1700
    D700 $2700

    Yes, the D700 body is a lot more expensive (though the two are almost the same price here in Japan and other parts of the world).

    7-14 $1800
    14-24 $1950

    And once again, the 14-24 is a little more expensive.

    But oops:

    14-35 $2300
    24-70 $1950

    And here's where you really start making up the difference:

    150/2 $2500
    300/4 $1150

    That's $1350 on one lens alone.

    The telephoto zooms seem to be pretty close in price:

    35-100 $2500
    70-200/2.8 VRII $2450

    (Again, here in Japan, the 35-100 is $450 more, and that's giving Oly a significant advantage by lazily using the old 100 yen to the dollar exchange rate.)

    So we can see that the D700 body costs quite a bit more than the E-5 in the U.S., but almost all the closest equivalent Oly lenses are more expensive, some significantly so. The totals for the above kits:

    $10,800 Oly
    $10,200 Nikon

    I'm sure you can find better prices for some of the Zuikos elsewhere, but you can also find better prices for the Nikon gear. For example, you can get a D700 refurb for $2160. (See this thread for details.)

    The other thing to consider is effective lens speed. Most of the above zooms are f/2 Zuikos and f/2.8 Nikkors. As Don said, you have to take the lens and sensor in tandem, and when you do this, the FF setup is a stop faster in real-life use. So even if it works out that some FF kits are more expensive, it is because they are based on lenses that are equivalent to f/1.4 zooms on four thirds.

    Now, different combinations of lenses will admittedly yield a cheaper result for Oly, especially if you don't count the 150/2 and 300/4 in the comparison, but my point is that it's very misleading to imply that the FF kit is always going to be "far more expensive."


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •