Oly OM-D + 9-18 vs. Canon 5D Mark II + 16-35L II - Pics inside!!

Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by LowriderS10, Jun 30, 2013.

  1. LowriderS10

    LowriderS10 Monkey with a camera.

    May 19, 2013
    So I bought my OM-D as a light travel alternative to my hefty 5D Mark II...I finally got both of them out for a quick comparison...both shot at 1/1000s, f5, ISO 200, auto focus, auto WB, JPEG, straight off the card. Here are some 100% crops...I have to say I'm incredibly impressed with the Olympus, especially considering this combo is a fraction of the size, a third of the weight and (new price vs. new price) about half the cost:

    The scene:

    TV300262 by canonzenit, on Flickr

    100% crops...Oly on the left, Canon on the right:

    At18mm-T1 by canonzenit, on Flickr

    Link to the original comparison (same as above, but full resolution):

    All sizes | At18mm-T1 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

    I'd say the Oly edges out the Canon for microcontrast, colour and sharpness in most of the situations...interestingly enough, the white car is blurry on the Oly shot, but nice and sharp (you can even see the grille's lines) on the Canon shot, but the leaves on the trees behind it are much better rendered with the Oly...overall, I'd say if you're not pixel peeping, and printing even decently-sized shots, you wouldn't be able to tell the two apart...and that says a LOT about the Olympus...

    Next up I'll do some high ISO comparisons...

    A friend of mine has been bothering me to sell my 5D2 to him...definitely considering it now...

    EDIT...just did some more testing...initially I was unhappy with the OM-D's high ISO performance...I generally don't mind a bit of noise, but I HATE it when cameras go overboard and just smudge up the image in an attempt to eradicate all noise...then I realized I could just turn off the camera's noise reduction and *BOOM* I was impressed...so here are the high ISO samples...from left to right, OM-D with "Standard" noise reduction, 5D2 (no NR) and on the far right OM-D with no noise reduction. All shots straight off the card.

    Settings: 18mm equivalent, ISO 6400, 1/30s, f4:

    The scene:

    At18mm-T3 by canonzenit, on Flickr

    100% crops:

    TV300265 by canonzenit, on Flickr

    Full size link to the original 100% crops:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/9174735880/sizes/o/

    Normally, even on my 5D2 ISO 6400 is as far as I'm willing to push things...anything above than that is usually reserved for stuff I never expect to print, I just want to have the shot...on my Flickr I have around 450 shots, only ONE above ISO 6400.

    However, I decided to push things a bit on the next experiment...same settings as above (18mm equivalent, ISO 6400, f4, 1/30s, BUT...I pushed the shadows a couple of stops - 25% - in Photoshop CS2)...this is about as far as I'm willing to push shots...pretty much a worst of the worst case scenario.

    The scene (before pushing the shadows)...at 1/30s, ISO 6400, f4, you can imagine how little light there was here:

    TV300268 by canonzenit, on Flickr

    100% crops after pushing the shadows 25%...Oly w/ Standard NR, then Canon w/ no NR, then Oly w/ no NR:

    At18mm-T2 by canonzenit, on Flickr

    And original-size link to the 100% crops:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/9172404123/sizes/o/

    T :)
  2. metalmania

    metalmania Mu-43 Veteran

    Jul 19, 2012
    Both at f/5? Why not use f/10 on 5DII?
  3. kevinparis

    kevinparis Cantankerous Scotsman Subscribing Member

    Feb 12, 2010
    Gent, Belgium
  4. LowriderS10

    LowriderS10 Monkey with a camera.

    May 19, 2013
    To have identical settings...
  5. mlphotic

    mlphotic Mu-43 Rookie

    May 24, 2013
    Finland, Kangasala
    It looks like Oly-combo produces a little bit better IQ?
  6. LowriderS10

    LowriderS10 Monkey with a camera.

    May 19, 2013
    Of course they have a usefulness...I wish I had seen something like this before I got my OM-D, would have made for a much easier decision (and I may have bought one a lot sooner)...if nothing else, it's good, EMPIRICAL proof of the OM-D's performance.

    Yeah, I'd say that throughout the frame *AT ISO 200* the OM-D may sliiiiiiiightly edge out the Canon. Which is incredible. Of course, in low light situations, the Canon's going to destroy the OM-D (the lens is a full stop faster at the wide end and two stops faster at the long end, and the few pics I've taken back-to-back, it was a clear win in the Canon's favour, especially if I tried to push the shadows a bit in post).

    Still...overall, I'm very impressed with the Oly...I'm going to go back to the last 12,000 or so shots I've taken with the 5D2 and look at how many I've taken at ISO 3200 and above and make a decision on whether or not to keep it based on that...If Oly had an equivalent to the 16-35L II (ie: roughly 8-18 f2.8 that takes filters), I'd likely dump the Canon system right now. Also, my Canon 135L is magic...but that may be solved with a 75 1.8...we'll see. :)
  7. flash

    flash Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Apr 29, 2010
    1 hour from Sydney Australia.
    Good controlled comparison. I know it was for your personal use, but thanks for sharing. I've had the 135L and 75 1.8 in the shed at the same time. You should get good money for your 135L. :)

  8. twalker294

    twalker294 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Aug 18, 2010
    I sold my 40D and all of my Canon lenses when I bought my OMD and I haven't regretted it for a second. The ONLY thing that Canon DSLRs have over any :43: camera is lens selection. There are still significant gaps in the lens selection for :43: that the DSLR systems have covered -- f/2.8 zooms (the only ones for MFT are the 35-100 and the 12-35,) and fast telephoto primes being the most glaring IMHO. I would love a 150/2.8 or even a 150/4 if you wanted to save some $.
  9. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Which is to be expected where focus point and depth-of-field are not held constant, as is the case here.
  10. LowriderS10

    LowriderS10 Monkey with a camera.

    May 19, 2013
    What did you think of the 75 1.8 vs. the 135L? And yeah, I'm hoping so! Definitely enough money to cover the cost of a 75. My biggest complaint with the 135L is that it's not stabilized...in low light, I REALLY have to watch my shutter speed and it's somewhat limiting. With the OM-D's IBIS, though, the 75 should be great to shoot down to around 1/40s, which would be impossible with the 135.

    Yeah, that's a bit of an issue right now. Oly has some great lenses, but some (fast, constant aperture UWA zoom) are still missing. I use my 16-35L 98% of the time, my 135L 1% of the time, and all others 1% of the time...so, really, if the 75 1.8 is good, I may be happy with the 9-18, 45 and 75 (might even sell the 45 eventually)...and then pick up a 100-300 (which isn't all that great), just to have a really long lens.

    The focus point was the same. DOF at f5 and 18mm equivalent is not an issue. Considering my focus point was around 10m (30 feet) away, the depth of field with the OM-D is 1m (3 feet) to infinity, whereas it's 1.8m (6 feet) to infinity on the 5D2. Every crop I posted is well within the limits of the DOF - the car is roughly 30m (60 feet) away -, and therefore is not be affected by it.
  11. monk3y

    monk3y Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 14, 2013
    in The Cloud...
    Hey you're not back in Canada, you mean to say you shipped your 5D all the way to Korea?

    Nice comparison man!!

    I knew it, from the time you bought your E-M5, that 5D's days are numbered... haha
  12. LowriderS10

    LowriderS10 Monkey with a camera.

    May 19, 2013
    Haha thanks, man...ummm...the 5D2 has had an interesting history. Some guy bought it at a Canon factory blowout in Hawaii when the 5D3 came out and never even opened the package, and sold it to me (he made a few bucks, and I still got a screaming deal). I had it shipped to Canada, where it sat for 4 months, until my buddy picked it up and brought it with him when we went backpacking around Europe (Hungary, Czech Republic, Croatia, Austria, Germany, Bosnia, Russia - airport haha -, etc). So I first "met" my camera in Hungary haha. I took it around Europe, then brought it back to Korea with me...since then, it's been to Korea, China, Hong Kong, Japan, Macau, the US and Canada, and now back in Korea. For having been in my possession for less than 11 months, it's done a bit of travelling. ;)
  13. monk3y

    monk3y Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 14, 2013
    in The Cloud...
    Wowee!!! :th_salute: What a great life man :biggrin:
  14. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    Well, I guess you're technically right, but between the 7-14 and 9-18, I think we're pretty well catered for in the :43: world. The 7-14 in particular (purple flare excepted !) is easily the better of both the Canon UWA zooms in IQ. Granted, it's f4 not 2.8, but for most uses of UWA zooms, this is not a significant disadvantage (at least not for me!). The Canon UWA zooms are as blunt as a stick of celery in the corners unless stopped down to f8 or further.

    Where we do need more lenses is better choice and range in the high-grade standard zoom category - basically something to compete with 12-35. I'd really like to see a 12-60.
  15. LowriderS10

    LowriderS10 Monkey with a camera.

    May 19, 2013
    Man, I really can't complain! At the end of July I'm taking off for Germany/Switzerland/Luxembourg/Liechtenstein (with day-stops in France and Belgium), coming back on Aug. 18th, then on Sept. 17th heading to Tokyo for the long weekend, then gotta plan something for the summer...maybe Taiwan...or Indonesia. ;) I'm really going to get my money's worth out of this "lightweight travel setup" I've been cobbling together! :D

    Yes and no. I'm not hating on M4/3 (this whole post is about how impressed I am with it), but the UWA zoom choices are rather poor compared to DSLRs...the choices are f4-5.6 or f4 continuous but you can't use filters. I do a lot of indoor/night stuff when I travel, and for that f2.8 is very helpful. I also love using my CPL and vari ND filters...so, for my purposes, as happy as I am with what I've got, I'm not exactly blown away by the choices. Yes, the Canons are soft in the corners, but in real-world usage, that's much less important than being a stop or two faster. In M4/3's defence, no other mirrorless manufacturer has a 2.8 ultrawide zoom either, so I guess they're on par with that...but it would be nice...

    It's interesting, though, because for me, the walkaround/standard zooms do nothing. Which is too bad, because if they did I suspect I'd be very happy with the Pan 12-35 haha.
  16. flash

    flash Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Apr 29, 2010
    1 hour from Sydney Australia.
    You've hit the nail on the head. IMHO the IBIS is *THE* feature that makes the EM5 (and by extension m4/3) a viable alternative to a DSLR. It really is that good. I am a huge fan of the 135mm focal length and have had several over the years. At one point I had 5 135mm lenses including the Canon 135L, Oly 75mm and the $$4,000 Leica M 135 f3.5 APO telyt, which I still have (and bought new on the same day I bought the 75mm 1.8). The Olympus lens consistantly delivers the sharpest results at a higher rate than any 135mm I've owned because of the incredible IBIS and the fact that the CDAF just doesn't miss (front or back focus) like PDAF can. I have never missed the 1 2/3 stops difference of DOF, personally. Actually I appreciate that to get the same DOF I can have either a higher shutter speed or a lower ISO than I would with a 35mm camera. As much as I love my Leicas, I find my self "forced" to use the 75mm on the Oly 90% of the time to ensure a perfectly sharp image. Fortunately there is actually no image quality compromise (apart from the sensor differences) going to the 75mm. I actually got out of m4/3 altogether for a while and bought back in when the 75mm 1.8 and EM5 became available.

    I also agree with you about the wides. I had the 16-35L II and loved it. I do think the 7-14 matches it optically (and it's a bit better in the extreme corners), but the filter thing bothers me as well, and I have yet to purchase another one. I am probably going to get a 9-18, this time round (which I've also had before and regret selling when I got my first 7-14). I picked up a Rokinon fisheye which is really, really good. That and a 9-18 should quench my lust for a 7-14.

    What I'd like to see would be a 6-7mm f2 prime and a 150mm f2 tele.

  17. LowriderS10

    LowriderS10 Monkey with a camera.

    May 19, 2013
    Thanks for your post, Gordon! This really fills me with hope...I absolutely LOVE my 135L, but it's probably the trickiest lens I've ever used due to the lack of stabilization and the extremely thin DOF. I'm going to dedicate a few hours to going through samples and reviews of the 75, but I think I may just break down and order one if my friend buys my 5D2. Yeah, the 7-14 is an excellent lens, but the no filters thing killed it for me. However, I have to say, for the price (and the size/weight!!!), the 9-18 is an excellent lens. As you can see, it holds its own against the 16-35L II...while weighing a fraction and costing around a third of the price. I do love how wide 16 is on full frame (wider than the 9 on M4/3), BUT...I was actually getting a little tired of my own UWA shots...lots of distortion, and often you end up with a ton of dead space (sky/foreground) and tiny little subjects, so you have to crop, etc...I'm surprisingly happy with the 9-18.

    Anyways, thanks so much for your insight on the 75 vs. the rest of the pack, it really fills me with hope! :D
  18. b_rubenstein

    b_rubenstein Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 20, 2012
    Melbourne, FL
    I've has a 9-18 for over a year. It has a some CA on the edges and corners that causes the blurry look . LR and even Olympus Viewer 3 can be used to remove it. Compared to the Sigma 10-20/4 - 5.6, the Olympus is quite a bit sharper across the frame.

    re the 75/1.8: I did a reasonably well controlled and conducted test comparing the 75/1.8 & OM-D against the Nikon 105VR/2.8 on a D7000 and the 75/1.8 measured a bit better. The 135L isn't a macro lens and may do a bit better, but not visibly better in regular usage. The 75/1.8 is just amazing.
  19. LowriderS10

    LowriderS10 Monkey with a camera.

    May 19, 2013
    Awesome, I'm going to download OV3 and see what kind of magic it can do...yeah, the edges are a little smudged with the 9-18 (especially with stuff like leaves and trees), but no more so than any of the highly-regarded UWAs I've owned (Sigma 10-20, Tokina 11-16, Canon 17-40L, Canon 16-35L II).

    I was thinking of just getting the 45 for the Oly, but now that I'm likely going to be letting go of all my Canon gear, I'm thinking the 75 may be worth the extra cash...
  20. HappyFish

    HappyFish Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Sep 8, 2012
    IMHO the 135 L and the 75 1.8 are so close its a who cares both insane if I had to put money on sharpness the 75 gets my nod

    I have posted this before its not a great shot my buddy and I were waiting for the bride and I said lets see who can shoot the slowest

    problem is people move lucky she was kinda still
    high ISO also and 1/5th a sec


    and a crop


    now I would never shoot that slow ? but nice to know you can so yes at 1/40th easy
    plenty clean and plenty sharp IMHO to work for a fun test :)

  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.