1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

OM-D vs DSLR?

Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by slackercruster, Jul 27, 2012.

  1. slackercruster

    slackercruster Mu-43 Regular

    90
    Jul 18, 2012
    NE US
    Anyone got a side by side pix of the OM-D next to a DSLR?

    I'm trying to get a handle on just how small it is?

    Preferably a Pentax DSLR as they are the smallest DSLR's...I think?

    Thanks!
     
  2. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    See Camerasize.com.

    Short answer though - it's smaller, but more significantly thinner and with smaller lenses. The lenses are really what make the difference.

    DH
     
    • Like Like x 3
  3. carpandean

    carpandean Mu-43 Top Veteran

    827
    Oct 29, 2010
    Western NY
    This site is useful for comparing size. On the left, you can independently change the view for each camera. There isn't a big difference in height or width from the Pentax (as you say, some of the smallest DSLRs), but if you compare the top views, then you can see a big difference in depth.

    Here's a top comparison with a relatively small Canon T3i:

    [​IMG]


    Edit: dhazeghi beat me to it while I was typing.
     
  4. DeeJayK

    DeeJayK Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 8, 2011
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Keith
    I think you'll find that the OM-D (at least w/o the add-on grip) is closer in size to your E-PM1 than it is to any DSLR.
     
  5. RevBob

    RevBob Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Jun 4, 2011
    NorthWestern PA
    Bob
    Yep, that picture says a lot in terms of size. Obviously it matters what you plan to use a camera for, but if size is important :43: really rocks!
     
  6. harrysue

    harrysue Mu-43 Regular

    164
    Mar 12, 2011
    OMD with old 14-42 vs K100D with 18-55.
    P7270485.jpg
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
    P7270472.jpg
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
    P7270478.jpg
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


    I only use the K100D with the larger DA 16-45 and never use the 14-42 on the OMD, mainly the 45mm and 20mm. In that case, the comparison gets skewed.
     
  7. slackercruster

    slackercruster Mu-43 Regular

    90
    Jul 18, 2012
    NE US
    Wow, top view really sums it up!
     
  8. jpil

    jpil Mu-43 Rookie

    23
    Jun 16, 2012
    +1
     
  9. DeeJayK

    DeeJayK Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 8, 2011
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Keith
    Here are the E-PM1, OM-D, Pentax K-01 and Pentax K-x (l-to-r):

    http://takenwithm43.com/mu-43/OlyVPentax.jpg" title="E-PM1, OM-D, K-01 & K-x (top view)">

    [img]http://takenwithm43.com/mu-43/OlyVPentax_rear.jpg" title="E-PM1, OM-D, K-01 & K-x (rear view)">

    All of these have similar effective focal length range kit lenses attached (Oly 14-42 mk2 & Pentax 18-55).
     
  10. Mikefellh

    Mikefellh Mu-43 Top Veteran

    938
    Jun 7, 2012
    Toronto, Canada
    There's no pictures yet comparing the E-M5 to (normal) SLRs, but if you look at the numbers there's very little difference in size in what people used to call large SLRs (in mm):

    146-95-54 Nikormat FT2
    144-93-43 Canon Ftb
    136-86-51 Minolta SRT-101
    143-92-88 Pentax Spotmatic
    133-85-50 my Exakta
    130-91-53 Olympus E-4xx
    122-89-43 Olympus E-M5

    Srt101 is shorter, and FTB is the same thickness! As for width, E-M5 is not as long since it doesn't have to accomodate the roll of film, so it's only 2.4cm or almost 1inch less long than the LONGEST camera on this list.

    Here's a visual comparison I did when the Oly E-4xx came out comparing the Exakta I mention above:
    cosinae-420.jpg
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


    People today call the E-M5 a small camera, but most people never used a film SLR...to me while it took a little time to get used to, now it feels more like the SLR I used for 20 years, rather big,bulky, oversized, heavy cameras I had to use over the past 10 years.
     
  11. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    And those SLRs (i.e. the 20+ year old ones) managed to fit in a mirrorbox, pentaprism and 'full-frame' sensor...

    DH
     
  12. DeeJayK

    DeeJayK Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 8, 2011
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Keith
    Of course, those 20+ y.o. SLRs lacked most of the electronics (and some functionality) of the mondo DSLRs of today.
     
  13. carpandean

    carpandean Mu-43 Top Veteran

    827
    Oct 29, 2010
    Western NY
    And the only thing behind the thin film was a thin door. Digital cameras have the thickness of the sensor, possibly a circuit board, the back wall and then the lcd screen (often articulating, which adds to the thickness.)

    For example, both the Canon FTb and the E-M5 are listed as roughly 43mm deep. The flange back distance of the FL mount is 42mm. Almost all of the body's depth is from the mount to the film; almost nothing is behind the film. Conversely, the flange back distance of :43: is 19.25, meaning half of the thickness is behind the front plane of the sensor.
     
  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.