1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Canon vs. Olympus

Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by jcm5, May 15, 2015.

  1. jcm5

    jcm5 Mu-43 Veteran

    212
    May 12, 2014
    USA
    Just for fun:

    http://www.christography.com/blog/full-frame-vs-micro-43-revisited-with-pro-olympus-lens

    As the author states, this is not a scientific test, but I found the results fascinating to say the least. I've never shot with the Canon, so I don't know whether this blog post is a sham, but I have to say so far I've been very happy with the EM10 + 12-40.

    I'm curious to hear thoughts from anyone out there who have made the switch to m43 from Canikon and whether they have suffered any losses in IQ (or I suppose in this blogger's case, an improvement!?) I know everyone here presumably enjoys shooting m43, but I thought I would link to that blog post for fun.
     
  2. siftu

    siftu Mu-43 Top Veteran

    633
    Mar 26, 2015
    Bay Area, CA
    siftu
    I came from Nikon APS-C (D7100) and had the Sigma Art 18-35 f1.8 and a few other lenses. I was expecting less IQ when moving system to e-m10 and 12-40 f2.8 but in actual fact the opposite was true. I had far more keepers and better images. Every single one of my m43 lenses has been better than I ever had with my crop nikon given the same $$ outlay O25, O45, O75, O12-40). Yes corner sharpness is very noticeable after the move. I would also say high iso noise isnt that much different and since I nail the exposure better with the evf, it's at least equal if not better. I often go back and process old images and it constantly reminds me I made the right move.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. DaveEP

    DaveEP Mu-43 Top Veteran

    683
    Sep 20, 2014
    York, UK
    I've shot Canon (professionally) for more years than I care to remember, but I sold all my full frame bodies last year.

    Full frame is nice for certain things, but after that the magic falls away pretty quickly.

    Most full frame lenses are soft in to the corners, much softer than the M43 counterparts, though that's fairly understandable due to the aspect ratio.

    Also, while it is indeed possible to get a much more shallow depth of field (something amateurs seem to crave more than professionals), you really need to stop many FF lenses down significantly to match the sharpness of an M43 equivalent wide open, which totally negates the full frame benefit.

    Add to that, the lenses are all much bigger and heavier and my back started to question why I was doing it.

    In terms of losing IQ, it's all about how you view it. Could I get more detail from a full frame 36MP camera? You bet I could, but it's really only significant if you're viewing it with the intention of looking for micro detail, such as at 100% on screen or with your nose up against a print. For the overwhelming majority of photographs you really won't see any benefit shooting high resolution full frame cameras.

    Oh, and one more thing, full frame costs a lot more to kit out. Just compare (say) the Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 IS with the Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS II. I have them sat here side by side and the Canon almost never gets used any more.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. drd1135

    drd1135 Zen Snapshooter

    Mar 17, 2011
    Southwest Virginia
    Steve
    Why did he put a polarizing filter on the Olympus but not on the Canon?
     
  5. Islesfan91

    Islesfan91 Mu-43 Regular

    108
    May 8, 2015
    interesting. I have the 6d with the tamron 24-70 f2.8 and the olympus em1 with the 12-40 f2.8 and while I love the portability of the em1, I struggle with the idea of leaving the 6d at home and without doing a side by side test, I still always prefer the images from the 6d. I'll have to put them side by side and test it for myself.
     
  6. DaveEP

    DaveEP Mu-43 Top Veteran

    683
    Sep 20, 2014
    York, UK
    It's perfectly OK to think that way. No criticism from me. May I ask what you use the eM1 for then if you always have the 6D / Tamron with you?

    Also, I noticed a significant difference in the post processing requirements of the Oly vs Canon (as there was Nikon vs Canon etc too). So if you're processing them identically then that could be part of the issue.

    The next question comes with are you happy with *any* of the images from the EM1? If so why, and why didn't you take that with the 6D instead?

    I sort-of understand why people want to do side by side tests, but I really don't think it's required. People either like or don't like the shot.

    I've never once had someone look at one of my A2 prints and say "oh, that looks like it came from m43" or "that would have been better on a full frame camera". They don't even consider the camera or lens that took the shot. They're either impressed or they're not based on the print.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Wolfeye

    Wolfeye Mu-43 Regular

    64
    Mar 20, 2015
    Iowa
    The Canon 17-40 is like a 77mm filter size and a decent polarizer for it costs big bucks. :)
     
  8. Islesfan91

    Islesfan91 Mu-43 Regular

    108
    May 8, 2015
    Part of my reply wasn't worded properly, I do leave the 6d at home for the em1 often, but I do prefer the image quality of the 6d. I have had some photos from the em1 I like but certainly find it much noisier in low light. I love the portability and weather sealing on the em1 and it will be my travel camera. Just recently I took the clear filter off the 12-40 lens and it seems to be sharper but again, it could be all in my head. Nothing scientific at all, I just have more confidence I'll get the shot I want with the 6d but I'm still getting used to the em1.
     
  9. gryphon1911

    gryphon1911 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 13, 2014
    Central Ohio, USA
    Andrew
    I agree a lot with this sentiment. One of the biggest issues that you have to contend with in a DSLR is the fact that the AF module may not be fine tuned with the lenses. A considerable amount of testing and potential calibration might need to be done in order to get the most out of a DSLR in the sharpness department, where as the mirrorless options that rely more on the contrast AF systems don't have that issue out of the box.
     
  10. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    I did the same comparison two years ago with my 5dii + 17-40 vs an E-PL5 + 17/1.8. It was that test which made me sell all my Canon gear and switch to u43. Mind you, the comparison would becompletely different in low light at high ISO.
     
  11. Jonathan F/2

    Jonathan F/2 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 10, 2011
    Los Angeles, CA
    I'm currently using Nikon FX (FF), Sony E and M43. I really don't like these comparisons because they all excel in certain areas. I like them all!
     
  12. ean10775

    ean10775 Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 31, 2011
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Eric
    But maybe not as much as you might think...Its certainly true there is an advantage to FF when it comes to low light/high ISO based purely on IQ, but some of that is negated by the need to stop down the FF lenses for either sharpness and/or DOF which therefore necessitates higher ISOs. Also, my G5, G6 and now GX7 can AF in low light scenarios that would leave the AF of my 5DII worthless.
     
  13. Cocoamedia

    Cocoamedia Mu-43 Rookie

    18
    May 4, 2015
    UK
    Dave Fowler
    I'm just about to swap out all of my Canon kit, including a 7D and the amazing 70-200 IS II f2.8. I found that I was avoiding lugging my canon body and around 5 lenses.

    I'm hoping I'm not going to struggle getting the shots I need for work, but having a camera with me all the time will definitely be an advantage | Canon - 0 Olympus - 1
     
  14. Lcrunyon

    Lcrunyon Mu-43 Top Veteran

    758
    Jun 4, 2014
    Maryland
    Loren
    When I first got it for bird photography, I felt my 7D Mk II (not FF, I know) showed a little more micro detail in the feathers, compared to my E-M1 with 75-300 Mk I or even 40-150 Pro. But, when I shot birds with both at close enough range, the difference in resolution between the 40-150 disappeared, meaning it was really the extra focal length of my Canon 100-400mm Mk II L-glass (the only lens I own for the 7D) that accounted for the difference.

    As for noise and ISO performance, I feel like I can boost the Canon's ISO up another f-stop or two, which is nice, but countered by the fact that my Oly glass is brighter.

    All in all, the two are very close in IQ so as to make no difference to me, but I by far prefer my E-M1 in every other respect - except C-AF (which is why I bought the Canon in the first place).
     
  15. PeeBee

    PeeBee Mu-43 Top Veteran

    657
    Sep 17, 2012
    UK
    Yeah, my G5 has a strong autofocus as did my G2. My EPM1 though is a different story and my humble Rebel is much more able in lower light.
     
  16. SkiHound

    SkiHound Mu-43 Veteran

    328
    Jan 28, 2012
    I find the format/brand wars pretty tedious. We're blessed with so many terrific cameras. Different systems and bodies have various advantages and disadvantages and everything has some compromises. I see terrific pictures from all kinds of cameras, including cell phones. And I see lots of boring photos from all systems. Bottom line, if the subject isn't interesting, and the composition isn't interesting, and the light doesn't suit the subject, it just don't matter how good the sensor is with respect to resolution/noise performance.
     
    • Agree Agree x 6
    • Like Like x 2
  17. mcasan

    mcasan Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 26, 2014
    Atlanta
    I have fighting the lack of lens compared to the L glass I had on my Canon bodies. With the 7-14 Pro the wide end should be in better shape. Now if they would just release the 300 πro by the end of Q3, that would be perfect.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. jyc860923

    jyc860923 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 28, 2012
    Shenyang, China
    贾一川
    So EM1 with firmware 3.0 is still not good enough in C-AF? I'm trying to decide whether I'm going to need the EM1 for action.
     
  19. gryphon1911

    gryphon1911 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 13, 2014
    Central Ohio, USA
    Andrew
    Firmware 3.0 is a whole different animal than the 2.x previously. I'm still trying its capabilities, but it is WAY better than before.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2015
  20. Lcrunyon

    Lcrunyon Mu-43 Top Veteran

    758
    Jun 4, 2014
    Maryland
    Loren
    The E-M1 C-AF is much improved, especially with the Pro glass. It is certainly good enough now to do action shots and not be frustrated (like before). But the 7D Mk II C-AF is the top of the class, and can do things the E-M1 can't, such as nailing a bumblebee in flight from two meters away, with nothing around it but air. It's mind-blowingly good.

    Of course, the type of action you are shooting is an important factor. You would only need the Canon for really tough challenges. I bought the 7D Mk II for BIF, not long before the Oly 3.0 firmware upgrade was announced. But that's the only thing I care to use it for. I would use the E-M1 for anything else, because I feel it is so much stronger in other aspects. I should caveat, though, that I don't shoot sports (except motorsports, for which I can say the E-M1 works fine), so I don't know how the E-M1 would do tracking, say, a hockey player in the midst of a frenetic game, with other players skating across the focus point. The 7D Mk II has settings to accomodate that and stay on-target. I think the E-M1's tracking sensitivity setting is for that purpose as well, but I can't say how effective it is.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2015
    • Like Like x 1