Leaning Om-D but want to give the competition a fair shake

Discussion in 'This or That? (MFT only)' started by TexChappy, Jul 3, 2012.

  1. TexChappy

    TexChappy Mu-43 Regular

    125
    Jun 30, 2012
    As I have already posted I’m thinking about going mirror less. I’m am leaning towards the OM-D but have a couple of other options I’d like users to compare if possible. Good video is important but IQ and durability is up there.

    1. Sony Nex-7 - downside - lens choice limited, size? (it looks chunky); upside - focus peaking; aps-c sensor

    2. Fuji X100 - downside - fixed lens (especially since I’ll need to get.keep a serrate camera for wildlife), no IBIS; upside - great pictures, sensor, viewfinder. haven’t heard a great amount of good things about the Pro-X1.


    And still haven’t totally given up on the idea of updating my DSLR body to a D5100.


    TIA,
    Tony
     
  2. ean10775

    ean10775 Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 31, 2011
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Eric
    I think you've pretty much nailed the three cameras, so it comes down to what your needs are based on the strengths and weaknesses of each camera. Of the four you mention, the odd man out for me is the X100 - a fixed lens camera for that kind of money seems limiting. I wouldn't want one as my only camera, but if you are planning on keeping your DSLR, maybe it makes sense to you.
     
  3. TexChappy

    TexChappy Mu-43 Regular

    125
    Jun 30, 2012
    Think that is the big question with that camera. Think that decision rests with how well the Om-D (or Nex) would be for wildlife. I’ve seen some pretty amazing wildlife shots with M43 but then read a lot of suggestions that a DSLR is still king at that kind of shooting.
     
  4. TDP

    TDP Guest

    Go with the Sony or Olympus and get an adaptor for your current glass.
     
  5. demiro

    demiro Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Nov 7, 2010
    Unless you are really into manual focus lenses I think the E-M5 is easily ahead of the Nex-7 because of lens selection.

    If the X100 meets your needs as an additional camera to your DSLR kit then it is worth a hard look.

    I considered those same options. My decision toward m4/3s and the E-M5 centered around wanting a kit to replace my DSLR for everything except sports shooting. If I wanted my "other" kit, beyond DSLR, to fill a more specific need I think the competition may have been a bit tighter. For best mix of all-around use, image quality, cost, lens selection, etc. it really wasn't that close of a decision in the end.
     
  6. D@ne

    D@ne Mu-43 Top Veteran

    593
    Feb 23, 2012
    Toronto
    From what the pros on here say, dslr still manages to win out on "action" shooting, but the em5 really is a delight to use. The ibis is incredible, the viewfinder is incredible, and the lens selection is terrific and keeps growing.

    The X100 has a fixed lens...that alone would put me off that model. The X Pro would be a better comparison, but the price is much higher.

    The sony has terrific points, as you made, but lacks the lenses and the oly ibis system.

    Choice was, frankly, easy for me.
     
  7. DeeJayK

    DeeJayK Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 8, 2011
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Keith
    Really? Because I really haven't heard any major complaints about the X-Pro-1 (once you get past the price and the limited number of available lenses). To me, the X-Pro-1 is a (still fairly rich) poor man's Leica M9. It can apparently do amazing things in low light and the Optical/Electronic viewfinder seems like a revelation. The recent lens announcements are very intriguing as well. I guess the biggest minus is the somewhat sluggish focusing, but that's just not that big a deal for me.

    The advantages of the OM-D over the X-Pro-1 (beyond price) are the 5-axis IBIS and weather-sealing as well as the :43: lens selection.

    The NEX 7 has an amazing sensor, but I think the only way I'd choose it is if I were planning to use it primarily with adapted manual focus lenses (due to the focus peaking). I don't particularly like the aesthetics of the NEX line.

    If I were shopping in this range, I'd probably go with the OM-D just because it's such an elegant package and I think it provides the best value, but it's a difficult call.
     
  8. ean10775

    ean10775 Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 31, 2011
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Eric
    If wildlife shooting is a priority, the crop factor of the OM-D is another plus, along with the IBIS to help stabilize shooting at longer focal lengths. That said, the AF and AF tracking offered by DSLRs often makes that type of shooting easier.
     
  9. nsd20463

    nsd20463 Mu-43 Regular

    116
    Apr 30, 2011
    Santa Cruz, CA
    You don't list AF speed as a downside of the X100, so perhaps you haven't held one in your hands yet. I've tried the X100 and after 10 minutes of fighting its slow and hesitant AF I handed it back. My recollection is it made the Panny 20mm look fast.
     
  10. jloden

    jloden Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 15, 2012
    Hunterdon County, NJ
    Jay
    I don't own any of those you mentioned (I shoot a Panasonic G3 instead), but I researched them all for much the same reasons and benefits you mentioned. My take, for whatever that's worth - if I could only have one, I'd absolutely want it to be a m4/3 for the best overall blend of features and especially the available lens selections. The m4/3 platform is simply more mature in terms of lens choices and the versatility wins out for me.

    From what I hear, the NEX-7 works well with adapted lenses and of course there's focus peaking. However, I honestly have no trouble focusing my manual lenses on my G3, even without the focus assist enabled. If I were going to shoot primarily manual/adapted lenses then the NEX might have an edge but for a mix of native + adapted I'm sticking with m4/3 gear.

    The X100 is one I'm looking at myself but only as a secondary camera. I like some things about it but I wouldn't want my only camera to be a fixed lens after the experience of having a wide array of native lenses with my G3 and GF2. I know you mentioned you have a DSLR but I'm assuming the point of looking at this at all is to get away from carrying around a full size camera. So I'm presuming you won't be carrying both the X100 and the DSLR :smile:
     
  11. TexChappy

    TexChappy Mu-43 Regular

    125
    Jun 30, 2012
    Had a long talk with the wife about what she wanted out of a camera. Basically she wants something compact that she can fit in her purse and that has high IQ. So what I'm thinking is that I may get one of the smaller M4/3 for her (and me) with a pancake lens and keep the D40 for a bit (or even update the body and use the lenses I have). Then I could build a system for kids/indoors/etc (i.e. short distance) and a DLSR for long wildlife sort of things.
     
  12. jar

    jar Mu-43 Regular

    39
    Jun 25, 2012
    Will your wife be happy without zoom? My girlfriend doesn't like the 3x range of the kit lens on our new G3 compared to the 5x on her old point and shoot.
     
  13. applemint

    applemint Mu-43 Veteran

    345
    Jan 24, 2012
    AF on the Nex cameras is slower than m43, so that's another downside. On the upside they are excellent cameras for use with legacy (manual focus) lenses.
     
  14. TexChappy

    TexChappy Mu-43 Regular

    125
    Jun 30, 2012
    Hmmm, I've been thinking as the OM-D as a kind of 'compromise' choice but it may end up being the best of both worlds instead of giving up on certain things. Wife wants compactness and high image quality - think the OM-D might do both those well. She mentioned point and shoot but I'm not sure I'd be happy with another point and shoot (and I'd like to be able to use the camera some too or I'm still looking for a lighter alternative to the Dslr on the short end).

    I was worried about the long end on the OM-D but any AF has to be faster than what I have on the D40 I'm guessing.

    Man, to many variables. Wish there was someplace where I could find all of them to play with them but doesn't seem to be in KC. A local dealer across town had some OM-D's when I talked with him last week and carries Nikon and Canon but would have to go somewhere else for Sony and nowhere apparently carries Fuji X series in town.
     
  15. mcumeda

    mcumeda Mu-43 Regular

    102
    Sep 25, 2011
    I have an X100 and an EM5. I also had a NEX-5n, but I sold it a while back.

    The X100 is actually pretty quick to focus with the updated firmware. The most current firmware is 1.3, and it is quick and rarely misses focus. I would say it is a couple of tics slower than an EM5. It is noticeable, but I wouldn't say that it is slow to focus, and I don't think it would affect your shooting too much. It feels as fast as the EM5 with the 20mm. It is not near as quick as the EM5 with an Olympus lens mounted. The EM5 just flies with an Olympus lens.

    The NEX was nice for legacy glass, but if you want autofocus, there are better choices. There is only a handful of e-mount lenses, and the ones that are good are expensive. The 24mm Zeiss is over a grand, and for that price, you might as well get a lens and extra body and buy a X100. But focus peaking is amazing. It feels like a rangefinder if you are taking a picture of something really contrasty. Peaking is not great if you are not shooting something with contrast however. Also, when I had the NEX-5n, the EVF was beautiful, but peaking did not work as well with it. The peaking lines were not as vibrant. I am not sure if Sony ever addressed that.

    I think the NEX system would be killer if they had some lenses, but they don't and it doesn't look like lenses are a priority for Sony. They have released five or six bodies, but only a handful of lenses.

    I am selling my X100 on the forum and keeping the EM5. It is beautiful, takes stunning pictures, and there are tons of lenses. And you can't beat the mu43 community, right?
     
  16. TexChappy

    TexChappy Mu-43 Regular

    125
    Jun 30, 2012
    Watched some reviews on some of the Nikon lenses that I thought I wanted. I can't see (even on a D5100) where they focus any faster and except for the 'Holy Trinity' of super heavy 2.8 lenses don't offer superior image quality. For instance, the AF-S 35 1.8 (IIRC) looked horrible with all sorts of chromatic aberrations. IF I do go for a DSLR I'm not thinking I'll do anything Nikon.

    However, I've seen some really good lenses for m4/3 so I keep coming back to the OM-D.
     
  17. bcaslis

    bcaslis Mu-43 Veteran

    302
    Jul 3, 2011
    Wilsonville, OR, USA
    Brian Caslis
    I tried the NEX-7 for a couple of weeks but returned it. To me the points were:

    Pros:
    1.) Great images at low ISO if the lens was stopped down
    2.) Good grip
    3.) Great size EVF

    Cons:
    1.) Few native lenses, only good quality were Zeiss 24mm f1.8 and 50mm f1.8.
    2.) Very noisy at high ISO, much worse than a Nikon D7000 for example
    3.) Very primitive wireless flash support (as far as I could tell)
    4.) EVF while large, requires getting eye close, has limited angle range (need eye right in the center to avoid distortion), and gets very slow and noisy in low light.
    5.) OK focus speed in good light, terrible in low light, unable to get focus lock in many instances in a house at night with normal incandescent lighting
     
  18. HarryS

    HarryS Mu-43 Top Veteran

    921
    Jun 23, 2012
    Midwest, USA
    I think that would be a EPM1 or GF5 with the 14mm pancake. There's a small Panasonic zoom too. Or the Olympus XZ1 for real compactness. Neither option has to be a whole lot of money, and you can always get yourself an OMD later.

    Understand the push for best IQ for your needs, but the lady has to carry it, The EM5 is not that much larger, but its metal body and full boatload of electronics adds up to a heavy purse. Jeez, my wife's purse only has coupons and plastic cards in it, but it weighs more than my camera bag with gear in it.
     
  19. kinlau

    kinlau Mu-43 Top Veteran

    836
    Feb 29, 2012
    My setup is the Canon 7D + 400/5.6 for wildlife, and GF3 + 20/1.7 for a walk around - surprisingly, even tho I have the 14-42z and 14/2.5, the 20/1.7 stays on 99% of the time. I also have a GH2 + 100-300 dedicated for video.
     
  20. TexChappy

    TexChappy Mu-43 Regular

    125
    Jun 30, 2012
    Further clarification from the other half: size wise she wants it just a bit bigger than her iPhone 3. Any M4/3 still in the running for her?