Is u4/3 enough?

[Uncle Frank]

I purchased 2 lenses recently... a 50/1.8d for my d700, and an Oly 25/1.8 for my ep5. Due to the small u4/3 sensor, both offer identical fields of view. Over the next few weeks, I'll shoot fx and u4/3 side by side, allowing me to compare the results from my tiny mirrorless rig and my big rig. Afterwards I'll decide if there's merit, for my purposes, in maintaining 2 expensive systems. I'll post my observations here.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Djarum]

I'm looking forward to your results. Should be interesting.

 

[janneman]

Good plan! Looking forward to your experiences!

 

[zap]

interesting...

 

[dpaultx]

Count me in - I've been wondering the same thing, but I'm lazy.

Should be interesting.

dp

 

[Itchybiscuit]

My resounding reply would be YES.

 

[daum]

for the E-P5. Basically an EM-1 without the EVF hump, and weather sealing. Love that little camera!

 

[WRay]

I'll be following this closely. I made the switch recently. Hint: one of my daughters is the proud owner of some Nikon equipment, the other two use micro four thirds cameras.

 

[Robstar1963]

Intrigued to see your reports !
Rob

 

[Drdave944]

I don't know about Nikon but with Canon the superior IS of the OLY will blow you away. I only use my Canon for fast telephotos. I can't resist those sweet Canon Telies.

 

[krugorg]

Cool idea - look forward to reading your impressions.

In the meantime, I am going to go ahead and give style points to your E-P5 setup. Man, those silver bodies with black lenses look awesome!

 

[Jonathan F/2]

Frank, I've been debating getting another 50mm for my Nikon setup. I'm holding out to get the 1.8 G version though...I'll probably buy one in the next week or two!

 

[Growltiger]

Do you have long telephotos for the Nikon? If so, get hold of the Olympus 75-300 and do some comparisons. The results I have had have been remarkably good. And compare the weight of the 600mm Nikon vs the tiny 75-300!

 

[Uncle Frank]

Cool idea - look forward to reading your impressions.

In the meantime, I am going to go ahead and give style points to your E-P5 setup. Man, those silver bodies with black lenses look awesome!

Shallow of me, but the beauty of the ep5 was a major selling point.

Frank, I've been debating getting another 50mm for my Nikon setup. I'm holding out to get the 1.8 G version though...I'll probably buy one in the next week or two!

The 50s are so inexpensive that they're hard to resist. I picked up a barely used 50/1.8d for $75.

Do you have long telephotos for the Nikon? If so, get hold of the Olympus 75-300 and do some comparisons. The results I have had have been remarkably good. And compare the weight of the 600mm Nikon vs the tiny 75-300!

I'm not into birding or football photography, so the Nikon 70-300vr on full frame has been adequate for my purposes. The Olympus 40-150 serves the same role on my ep5.

 

[wushumr2]

My old D7000+Tamron 70-300VC I would say weighs roughly the same as my E-M1 with 50-200 Mk 1. The balance is a little more lens-heavy but it's not a huge deal, and I can focus closer with the 50-200 than I can with the Tamron, and I have a larger absolute aperture with the Olympus while yielding completely identical 35mm equivalent aperture. Plus, the only suitable portrait/macro lenses I found for the Nikon were the 60mm Tamron (focusing in even moderately poor light was ABYSMAL) and the old 55mm AF macro which is a fantastic lens, sharp as a tack, but noisy and slow-ish autofocus. The 50mm f2 macro is 25% longer/tighter but about as sharp, lighter, and yields the same equivalent aperture. PLUS I get the E-M1's stabilizer. The D7000 combo is heavier which gives my shaky hands a break, but I'd say the advantage still leans m4/3.

It's sad that DX gave me such poor options to be frank. Going to full frame out of CONVENIENCE is somewhat ridiculous, and now that I see Canon came out with an afforable DX wideangle but Nikon has yet to makes me glad I switched.

 

[Ned]

I'm interested to see your thoughts, Frank!

Personally, as a full-time studio and part-time location photographer, I do not have a need for other bodies than m4/3. I don't think saying "m4/3 is enough" would be accurate though, as the body is one of the smallest parts of my system and is the only part which I stick to m4/3 exclusively with. My glass is varied from many systems, as are my lighting and other accessories (I'm not tied to auto functions, which is an important aspect to being able to mix systems). Those are the heart of the system, and has changed little over all the years as I've moved along with many different bodies.

One thing I have never done though is to "dump" a system, or ever had to struggle on a decision of which system to keep. My system evolves through natural selection. I use every body, every lens, and every accessory until they die. Being as this is how I make my entire living, it is very common for me to wear out my equipment and refresh it constantly with replacements, whether using the manufacturer's "pro grade" or "consumer grade" gear. I continued to use my DSLRs until they were dead, but when the decision came to replace them, more m4/3 bodies were bought instead, as there was simply no reason to buy more expensive, bulky DSLR bodies. I would still use some for certain purposes if they lived long enough, but as far as investing thousands of dollars in replacing an old body with a new one, I saw no need. Thus the m4/3 bodies ended up populating my collection as the base body system, which is great as they are adaptable to so many lenses and are capable for so many different applications from studio to location to "everyday carry". Survival of the fittest.

I'm also never one to need the "latest and greatest" gear. Photography is a timeless art to me, and the quality, design, and functionality which have been passed down through generations are more important to me than this year's newest "game-changer" features.

 

[Uncle Frank]

Here's my first comparison... a simple flower shot.

d700 + 50/1.8d @ f/4 1/100 iso200

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

ep5 + 25/1.8 (50mm fov) @ f/2.8 1/400 iso200

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

​

I shot the fx shot at f/4 and the u4/3 shot at f/2.8 to compensate for the difference in DOF between the large and small sensors. I didn't notice that the d700 was set to +1ev, which accounts for the 2 stop difference in shutter speed. But since I shot the d700 in raw, I was able to adjust the exposure in LR. I'm shooting the ep5 in jpeg. Both images have been processed in LR, since I'm not trying to make an out-of-camera comparison. It was easier to take the shot with the small ep5. I'll be interested in your comments about iq.

 

[dhazeghi]

I shot the fx shot at f/4 and the u4/3 shot at f/2.8 to compensate for the difference in DOF between the large and small sensors. I didn't notice that the d700 was set to +1ev, which accounts for the 2 stop difference in shutter speed. But since I shot the d700 in raw, I was able to adjust the exposure in LR. I'm shooting the ep5 in jpeg. Both images have been processed in LR, since I'm not trying to make an out-of-camera comparison. It was easier to take the shot with the small ep5. I'll be interested in your comments about iq.

I slightly prefer the D700 shot, but I can't really say the difference is enough to go one way or the other.

I guess if it were me, I'd either shoot both in RAW or both in JPEG. Testing Adobe's JPEG processing vs. Olympus's JPEG processing seems a little odd. For Adobe, I'd probably go with the 'Camera Standard' calibration in Lightroom for the NEF files, since the default Adobe colors never really made much sense to me.

 

[Uncle Frank]

I guess if it were me, I'd either shoot both in RAW or both in JPEG. Testing Adobe's JPEG processing vs. Olympus's JPEG processing seems a little odd.

I'm just going with my normal flow. I always shoot my d700 in raw, and my ep5 in jpeg. I'm not trying to determine the best rig... just if it makes sense for me to support 2 systems.

I slightly prefer the D700 shot, but I can't really say the difference is enough to go one way or the other.

The differences may relate to the lenses. The O25 seems literal, while the N50 draws with a vintage (painterly) brush.

 

[Fmrvette]

Frank,

After looking at the image(s) on two different monitors, I'd have to go with the m/43 lens on this one. The flower's stamen seem to be clearer, maybe due to color saturation differences with the Nikon shot???

To me (and obviously this is subjective) the bokeh of the Nikon shot is a bit more attractive but not enough to make me want to invest in two different systems .

How about some more examples?

Or, since I much prefer prints over screen views, how about mailing everyone a set of 13x19" prints and we can decide from those?

So far, and based solely on your example set, I'd say the m4/3 is "close enough" - but I'd hate to make a determination of this magnitude based on a single sample photograph.

Regards,

Jim