E-M1 vs Sony A7R

[pdk42]

I did a quick comparison of the E-M1 against the Sony A7R. You can see it here:

E-M1 and Sony A7R comparison (warning - lots of images) - Olympus UK E-System User Group

 

[bigal1000]

?

 

[pdk42]

?

Why do you say this? Is the link not working or something?

 

[Clint]

This should be posted in the This or That forum?

 

[pdk42]

This should be posted in the This or That forum?

Ah, OK - sorry. Can someone move it for me?

 

[bigboysdad]

Whichever forum it gets put into, it was an informative test considering there seem to be so many here considering the A7, thanks Paul.

 

[Tall Guy]

I did a quick comparison of the E-M1 against the Sony A7R. You can see it here:

E-M1 and Sony A7R comparison (warning - lots of images) - Olympus UK E-System User Group

Thanks for the comparison. I have actually considered both these cameras in the past but I'm not privy to actually do the tests.

Thanks Again!!

 

[ijm5012]

Great comparison @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.

 

[Turbofrog]

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.

 

[pdk42]

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.

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.

 

[LowriderS10]

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.

 

[usayit]

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.

 

[kimo]

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.