E-M1 vs Sony A7R

Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by pdk42, Feb 6, 2016.

  1. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 4
    • Like Like x 1
  2. bigal1000

    bigal1000 Mu-43 Veteran

    Sep 10, 2010
    New Hampshire
  3. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    Why do you say this? Is the link not working or something?
  4. Clint

    Clint Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Apr 22, 2013
    San Diego area, CA
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    Ah, OK - sorry. Can someone move it for me?
  6. bigboysdad

    bigboysdad Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 25, 2013
    Sydney/ London
    Whichever forum it gets put into, it was an informative test considering there seem to be so many here considering the A7, thanks Paul.
  7. Tall Guy

    Tall Guy Mu-43 Regular

    Sep 15, 2015
    Jeff H
  8. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Legend

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Great comparison @pdk42@pdk42, thanks for your work!

    Yes I agree that the Sony does indeed look better in a number of the images. Lower noise, more detail, etc. I find this particularly interesting as I own two GH4's, but am enamored with the thought of picking up an A7R and a 16-35 for a landscape lens (plus I can use the Sony with adapted FD glass).

    I think the biggest advantages to the A7R are the great resolution (yes, I actually print my images, most of them >30" wide), the lower noise at base ISO, and the ability to push the RAW files quite a bit (something I do quite a bit with landscape shots).

    Again, thanks for your work in putting this together. I think it goes to show that even the "old" 16MP m43 sensors are quite good.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    Nice comparison. I wonder if some of the detail retention can also be attributed to lens vs. sensor qualities, as well.

    While I don't think the E-M1 held up that well at ISO 6400 in the comparison (though usable in a pinch), given that the 17mm had 1.5 stops left in it (so you could have shot the same image at ISO 2500 instead), and the 17/1.8 only costs half as much as the 35/2.8 despite that, I'd call it a pretty decent showing.

    While the the 55/1.8 seems absolutely stellar (if you can get past Sony QC and acquire a good copy) which makes its price tag slightly easier to swallow, a 35/2.8 for $800 is just a bitter pill that I find totally unjustifiable.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    I agree - Sony's pricing of the entire A7 landscape, with perhaps the exception of the base A7, is too high. The A7Rii at north of £2300 must be putting a lot of people off - and don't even mention the price of lenses.

    I think if Sony really wanted to challenge the rest of the industry, pricing the A7Rii at a 50% premium over the A7 and chopping 20% off lens prices would make a big difference to uptake.
  11. LowriderS10

    LowriderS10 Monkey with a camera.

    May 19, 2013
    Thanks for doing the comparison, I'm sure many of us have pondered the difference between the two. The Sony is an excellent camera. So is the Olympus. Is the Sony a slight bit better at 100% than the Oly? I wouldn't doubt it. Is it real world relevant for 99.999% of photographers? I don't think so. I've played with a few variations of the A7 in stores and compared them to my E-M5, and was never blown away by the difference...the Oly seemed to do a bit better now and again, and the Sony was a bit better at other times...

    Additionally, the bodies tell only half the story. Sony's lens selection (or lack thereof) and comparatively ridiculous pricing of lenses ($999 for a 55 1.8??!!, the Oly equivalent is $299, Sony 16-35 f4 is $1,400, the Pan 7-14 is $800, the Sony 35 f2.8 is $800, the Oly 17 2.8 is $200, the f1.8 is 1 1/3 stops faster and still only $400, and let's not even get to the higher end stuff...heck, even their lowly 24-240 f3.5-5.6 is $1,000!!) made it a no-brainer for me.

    And trust me, I was in love with the idea of the A7 when it came out and really, really, REALLY wanted to convince myself that I want one. I have nothing but great things to say about the cameras, but I feel that overall, the Olympus is still a superior system (when lens selection, sizes, and prices are taken into account) for most photographers.
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Great comparison.

    I no doubt that Sony has the better sensor.... but the better system? Really depends. I think for many of us, micro 4/3rds and olympus have created a wonderful system worthy of our praise.

    For me, the Sony is superior in only one aspect... my adapted lenses. There is a something undeniable about using an adapted 135 lens as it is intended.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. kimo

    kimo Mu-43 Regular Subscribing Member

    Dec 4, 2013
    Oahu, Hawaii
    Interesting to see the side by sides. Thanks for doing that. Have wanted to do it myself but never took the time. I bought a used A7R about 10 months ago. I picked up a new FE 24-70/4 and FE 28/2 to go with it. I didn't put the Sony system down until just a few weeks ago when I picked up my E-M1 and fell back in love with it. It's such a great little camera and perfect for the cold winter season. I don't need huge hi-res files on every outing. It's nice to see the difference in IQ isn't huge although it is something I immediately recognized when I started using the A7R. But both cameras have their place in my life, and I like them both for different reasons. Since they don't overlap I don't feel guilty about maintaining two systems lol.
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.