Back to the E5

[Guy Roberts]

Went out for a shoot this morning and set the camera up, composed the shot, turned around to get an nd grad when I heard a crash. A small gust of wind had blown the kit off the cliff edge.
So with the EM1 gone it's back to the trusty E5. Sure feels big and heavy though.

[Edmunds]

Oh wow, that's a nightmare of mine! In windy locations I always wrap the strap around my other wrist because I'm paranoid.

[Gunn]

Ouch! So sorry man.

[Guy Roberts]

Well we managed to retrieve the kit. One leg of the tripod snapped off, the lens has water in it but the glass is not broken, I think the tripod must have taken the brunt of the fall. Got the camera in a dehumidifier so we will see if it works. If so that is one tough camera!

[Guy Roberts]

The camera is dead, and the lens, my 14-54 f2.8-3.5, which was my favourite walk around lens on the E5, has salt water in it.
I don't consider it an option to send them off for repairs, as I can get a used em1 from B&H for $650.
But I can get a new Sony a7 for $898, which seems like a bargain.
Granted it does not have OIS built in and I will have to buy a lens which will cost another $1,000, but that is still marginally less than a new mk2.
I know some of you have both systems, so would you share your thoughts on using and image quality between the two?

Thought I'd share the last shot I took with it


Thanks
Guy

[Edmunds]

The Sony a7 is an entry level camera. Functionally, if you want to compare it with an Olympus camera, a good comparison would be the E-M10.

That said, only you can figure out what your needs are. Maybe you don't need a pro-grade camera. I know I never bought a pro grade Olympus.

If you're shooting landscapes from a tripod, and you don't mind the size and cost of lenses, undoubtedly the Sony is going to be a better camera.

But as a general purpose camera for everyday use and travel, I wouldn't pick the Sony due to its slow AF, operational speed, and the size of lenses, and of course the lack of options when it comes to lenses.

[Guy Roberts]

Thanks Edmonds. A friend has the Nikon 800, Sony a7RII and the Oly em1 and says that the build quality on the Sony is not as good as the Olympus.

[Guy Roberts]

Meant to say that I am now considering the a7II which I believe is better but still not up to Olympus quality.

[tomsi42]

It's always a bummer when your camera dies.

If you are going to shift to another system, it is a good idea to check what you are missing in the 4/3 (µ-4/3) system and see what system delivers that. In addditon, you will need lenses - how much does the one you need cost and how big are they.

What do you like about the E-M1. Do you get that in other system?

[Edmunds]

Well, the a7II is the new version of the a7, but the "grade" of the camera is the same. Its a consumer grade camera. People just have a difficult time wrapping their heads around the fact that a consumer grade camera can cost $1500, as normally these are $500-$800.

This also leads to stupid comparisons, like "The E-M1 II is more expensive than a full frame a7II!!". But why would anybody compare a consumer grade camera to a pro-grade one. Olympus does make a similar spec consumer grade camera, its the E-M10II and it costs $650. The difference in picture quality between an E-M1 and an E-M10 isn't going to be much different. But there's more to a camera than picture quality.

So I guess its a question of, whether or not you need the full frame sensor and the benefits it delivers, or you want a pro-grade camera. For different types of photography the answers would be different.

[Guy Roberts]

Looking at other forums there are lots of complaints that Sony cameras are not in the slightest weather proof and any moisture will get in and ruin the camera.
This is a deal breaker as I frequently take shots where there is salt spray and I have to wipe the camera and lens down with a damp cloth when I get home. It has never been a problem for the e5 or em1.
As you said "there's more to a camera than picture quality".
I must admit that I am drawn to the image quality of ff, but as I find even the e5 too big for hiking with, a dslr would be pointless.
Also m4/3 renders apsc pointless imo.
Might investigate the em1 MkII.
Some people get lucky, no doubt, but these cameras can be ruined if you do so much as look at water the wrong They're the best tools for photographers available but they need to be babied like nothing electronic I've used before.

[Guy Roberts]

This article puts the case for the emII beautifully:

https://www.shutterbug.com/content/o...-camera-alaska

[Guy Roberts]

Slowly talking myself into buying the em1mk2.
This from imaging-resource.com:

"The Olympus E-M1 II delivers solid performance in the print quality department. Expanded ISO 64 and base ISO 200 offer superb results with an incredible amount of detail and pop at 30 x 40 inches. You can expect large print sizes up to a 16 x 20 at ISO 1600, after which the sizes trail off in typical fashion for this sensor size. And it's nice to know that you can even achieve a good 5 x 7 at ISO 12,800, which allows you some ISO freedom for when larger prints are not needed. We recommend avoiding ISO 25,600, as the prints just aren't quite good enough for most purposes, but otherwise the camera does a nice job overall for print quality."

[Guy Roberts]

Going on a trip and my favourite travelling lens with the e5, the 14-54 mk1, went off the cliff with the em1. As I will need to do a couple of interior shots the 7-14 is a must. Taking the 14-35 f/2 as well is too bulky so I am taking 7-14, 50 macro and 2x converter, and hopefully this will have all bases covered. It's an odd combination, but should work.

[Michael Meissner]

Going on a trip and my favourite travelling lens with the e5, the 14-54 mk1, went off the cliff with the em1. As I will need to do a couple of interior shots the 7-14 is a must. Taking the 14-35 f/2 as well is too bulky so I am taking 7-14, 50 macro and 2x converter, and hopefully this will have all bases covered. It's an odd combination, but should work.

I once did a whale watch trip in California and I had packed away the 14-54mm lens. I only had the 11-22mm lens for doing the harbor shots, and the 50-200mm + EC-14 for the whale shots. The whales were a lot closer than I could catch with the 50-200mm, so I wound up catching them with the 11-22mm + EC-14.

[Guy Roberts]

Did the shots come out ok?

[Michael Meissner]

Did the shots come out ok?

Yes, they came out fine. Note however, I only had the 1.4x converter, not the 2x converter.