Canon 5D—Oly OM-D Comparison

Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by Dave Jenkins, Jun 18, 2013.

  1. Dave Jenkins

    Dave Jenkins Mu-43 Veteran

    Jun 28, 2010
    The beautiful northwest Georgia mountains
    Real Name:
    Dave Jenkins
    Here's an interesting comparison I made a few weeks ago, just checking some things on my office scales:

    Canon 5D Classic with 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 lens (non -L and one of Canon's lighter lenses): 12 very good megapixels, usable ISO 50 to 3200, focal-length range 24-85mm, fastest aperture f3.5. Weight: 2 lbs., 14 oz.

    Olympus OM-D with Panasonic 20mm f1.7, Olympus 45mm f1.8, and Olympus 14-150mm f4-5.6 lenses plus Olympus E-PL1 body with VF-2 electronic viewfinder for backup. 16 very good megapixels (OM-D), usable ISO 200 to 3200 (perhaps more), focal-length range 28 to 300mm equivalent, fastest aperture f1.7. Total weight: 2 lbs., 14 oz.

    I've been having some problems with the OMD recently. This, for me, is what makes it worthwhile to stick with the system.
  2. mister_roboto

    mister_roboto Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jun 14, 2011
    Seattle, WA, USA
    Real Name:

    With used full frame cameras coming down in price at only a few hundred US dollars, I've been thinking about getting an old one, a 5D specifically. I can never justify it though. Mainly because it's getting pretty old tech-wise (5D), and I don't really need ANOTHER reason to buy more lenses.

    Size though has me spoiled. I've considered selling my µ4/3 gear and getting a few primes, and a 6D. The mainly reason I don't: size. I carry 5 lenses and camera body in my everyday bag- with not really noticing that I'm carrying that much. If I did go the FF route, there's no way I could carry that many lenses in my bag- well I could, but it's would be quite a bit heavier and I'd have no room for my lunch in there. Selling everything would also be a bit of a pain, and a lot of the equivalent focal length lenses I'd go after aren't as good as most of the µ4/3 lenses I have now.
  3. Halaking

    Halaking Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Dec 17, 2012
    Los Angeles
    Real Name:
    You might consider 14-150mm to cover all, and pick one of 45mm 1.8, 12mm 2.0, or 20mm 1.7 for low light.
  4. BillW

    BillW Mu-43 Regular

    Oct 22, 2012
    Scranton, PA
    I sold my 5D once I confirmed that my G5 produced better quality images. After shooting with a G5, it's tough to work with 9 limiting focus points and no face detection on a 5D.

    Flash, on the other hand is something that is not yet perfected the way Canon and Nikon have done with TTL.
  5. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    But Olympus invented TTL for flash. ;)
  6. Pecos

    Pecos Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jan 20, 2013
    The Natural State
    Small size and low weight were the points that got me interested in OM-D. But the killer image quality was the deciding factor. Why would I not get a camera that's smaller and better than the Pentax K-5?
  7. nstelemark

    nstelemark Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 28, 2013
    Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
    Real Name:
    And having now had a chance to play with a 36R on the OMD I have to say it is a really impressive system.
  8. bassman

    bassman Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Apr 22, 2013
    New Jersey
    Real Name:
    That's pretty much the same comparison I made when I got my E-M5: Nikon D7000 + 16-85/3.5-5.6 weighs the same as E-M5 + 12-35 + 17/1.8 + 25/1.4 + 45/1.8.
  9. Dave Jenkins

    Dave Jenkins Mu-43 Veteran

    Jun 28, 2010
    The beautiful northwest Georgia mountains
    Real Name:
    Dave Jenkins
    Check me on this, but I think that Minolta may have invented it, but did not implement it. Olympus bought usage rights and were the first to put it out in a camera.