1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

OM-D vs DSLR?

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

  1. slackercruster

    slackercruster Mu-43 Regular

    86
    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

    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

    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. P7270472. P7270478.

    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

    86
    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

    939
    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.

    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

    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.