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

Trying to make a decision: E-p5 vs E-M1 vs E-M5-vs GX7

Discussion in 'This or That? (MFT only)' started by elandel, Dec 9, 2013.

  1. elandel

    elandel Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 16, 2010
    Milan, Italy
    I'm a bit confused. Want to get a new m4/3 body but can't make my choice.
    I own an e-pl5 and E-p3 and E-30 and Nex 6 and Pentax K-30 with 18-135, really way too many bodies so I'll trade in my Nex 6 and K-30 and maybe the e-pl5 or E-p3 for another newer m4/3 body. Why? I have a mixed bunch of lenses m4/3 and 4/3: so I want a bigger m/4/3 body. My 4/3 lenses are: 14-54 II - 12-60 - 50-200 I - 35 macro. I have a complete set (for my needs) of m4/3 lenses and legacy lenses including some Leica's.
    Questione: which one to buy even used one? I think E-M1 could be the right one, but too expensive if I can get the same, or almost the same, feature set and IQ in another body. I want to use my 4/3 lenses and am fine usung them with my epl5 with only the 50-200 being too big. I rarely shoot at fast moving objects so af with the 4/3 lenses are mostly ok for me, even if a bit faster would always be better.

    Thanks for your help.
     
  2. 50orsohours

    50orsohours Mu-43 All-Pro

    Oct 13, 2013
    Portland Oregon
    I'd wait until you can get the money for the EM1.
     
  3. hkpzee

    hkpzee Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 5, 2011
    Hong Kong
    Patrick
    I second that. Though not as good as the E-5 (the E-5 seems to lock focus with more confidence in low light, while the E-M1 would hunt a little with 4/3 lenses), the E-M1 makes the 4/3 lenses a much better experience than any other m4/3 cameras. I would just keep the E-PL5 and sell the rest of the cameras for it...
     
  4. elandel

    elandel Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 16, 2010
    Milan, Italy
    That was my initial thought but here the price for M1+12-40 is 2400 euros; way too much for an amateur. Must figure out what I can get selling my equipment.
     
  5. hkpzee

    hkpzee Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 5, 2011
    Hong Kong
    Patrick
    Since you already have the 14-54 Mk II, you can go for the body only option, right? Alternatively, you can sell the 14-54, too! I also have that lens, and I don't have any use for it anymore since getting the 12-40.
     
  6. elandel

    elandel Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 16, 2010
    Milan, Italy
    Is there difference in IQ between 12-40 and 14-54II which is an awesome lens IMHO
     
  7. elandel

    elandel Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 16, 2010
    Milan, Italy
    My only concern is that with 14-54 the size is bigger. I would use the
    12-40 on M1 and 14-54 on Epl5 like I'm doing now.
     
  8. hkpzee

    hkpzee Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 5, 2011
    Hong Kong
    Patrick
    I have not really compared IQ between the 12-40 and the 14-54II, but the 12-40 is one sharp lens. You can look at all the reviews available online to see if it is good enough for you. IMHO, the 12-40 is as sharp as it can get for a zoom at 12mm, even wide open, but gets a little soft at 40, which can easily be fixed by stopping down slightly. The main problem I have with the 14-54II is that it hasn't gained any focus speed on the E-M1, compared to my E-M5, unlike the 50-200SWD. My guess is that it was already CDAF-optimized, so it doesn't perform any better on the E-M1 than previous m4/3 models.

    Depending on what m4/3 lens you have the 12-40 could potentially replace any of your m4/3 within that focal range. I know I will be putting up my 12/2.0 for sale soon...
     
  9. elandel

    elandel Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 16, 2010
    Milan, Italy

    Yes the 14-54II is CDAF optimized. My 50-200 MK1 performs reasonably well and 12-60 so-so, I have not tried the 35 macro yet. The only m4/3 lens that could be replaced by the 12-40 is my 45 1.8, all the others are zooms. I choosed to use the 4/3 pro lens as kit lens waiting for the M1, but was really surprised by the price.

    For fixed lens I use my legacy Nikon lenses that go from 28 to 200, and Om lenses. I use the LEICA-M 135/4.5 HEKTOR CR for portraits but for my eyes I prefer focus peaking, thats why I bought the Nex but missed IBIS, so I'm selling it.
     
  10. hkpzee

    hkpzee Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 5, 2011
    Hong Kong
    Patrick
    Sounds like the E-M1 is really your ideal camera then, except for the price! If you're happy with the focus speed of the 14-54 II on the E-PL5, then I'd definitely suggest going for the E-M1body only option.
     
  11. Ian.

    Ian. Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 13, 2013
    Munich
    Ian
    It's the 4/3 lenses that make the E-M1 the prime choice. But that fails on the price. So, to make the choice easier, make a fresh start by selling all your 4/3 lenses and get one of the m4/3 bodies. And the 12-40 if necessary.
     
  12. elandel

    elandel Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 16, 2010
    Milan, Italy

    Yes it could be better but for stills its ok for me.
     
  13. elandel

    elandel Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 16, 2010
    Milan, Italy
    Already thought about that but its not worth it. Here you would have to sell for nothing so maybe better save money and buy the M1 afterall. I thought that E-P5 would improve af performance of 4/3 lenses but it doesn't seem so from what I understand,
    .
     
  14. T N Args

    T N Args Agent Photocateur

    Dec 3, 2013
    Adelaide, Australia
    call me Arg
    Today's blog post by Kirk Tuck he comments on the GH3 he has been using extensively, saying it "is a wonderful camera. The files are neutral and transparent and, I think as good as anything out in the market at 16 megapixels. At least on par with the Olympus OMD EM-1.".

    So he reckons as of today the GH3 might be the best IQ camera on µ4/3, either equal or better than the E-M1. His blog post goes on to praise its performance with legacy Nikon glass (I note you were interested in interested in using legacy glass, elandel).

    So, maybe the GH3 is a prime choice for you, too.

    cheers
     
  15. 50orsohours

    50orsohours Mu-43 All-Pro

    Oct 13, 2013
    Portland Oregon
    No Image stabilization unfortunately. Lovely camera, but that is a big minus for a lot of people.

     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Halaking

    Halaking Mu-43 Top Veteran

    667
    Dec 17, 2012
    Los Angeles
    Morris
    why not the new EM-10 and the new Fujifilm X-T1 on the list, they are coming out end of this months.
     
  17. Ian.

    Ian. Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 13, 2013
    Munich
    Ian
    The GH3 may be a fine camera, but use with the 4/3 lenses is not as good as the E-M1. Which is why I suggested dumping the 4/3 lenses (to people on the forum :) as they are a burden to the OPs decision.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. T N Args

    T N Args Agent Photocateur

    Dec 3, 2013
    Adelaide, Australia
    call me Arg
    Big minus?

    It certainly is, isn't it? It has been for me, too. And yet, when I look back at my use of IS over the years, I wonder whether it deserves the status it gets on the shopping lists of serious photographers.

    This is what I have found:

    - for long telephoto lenses it is a great asset. If you shoot hand held. Which is not a good idea with such lenses because of the weight. But quite often hand held shooting is needed for the responsiveness to action, and in these cases shutter speeds need to be near 1/1000 or faster for steady-handed shooting without IS. But guess what -- the action that required hand held shooting to keep up often requires 1/1000 or faster anyway.

    - for shorter lenses, IS is completely unnecessary in most lighting. And the advantage it brings in low light is countered by the fact that the shutter speeds being used are so slow that any subject motion will ruin the shot (except for special motion effects, a rare need), so the subject needs to be motionless. Well, if the subject is completely static, we are much better off using a tripod, because image blur will be at lower levels and the failure rate is much lower. So, when is IS the best choice? Not often at all.

    - which brings up the other dubious aspect of relying on IS, that of failure rate. If we use high enough shutter speeds for the lens, the failure rate is very low. If we use tripods in low light the failure rate is very low. But when using IS, the failure rate is typically quite signifiant, because that is the nature of the beast (look at some IS test charts) when being relied on for 2 or more stops of stabilisation. The best choice is the one that keeps one's failure rate low -- obviously.

    So yes it is seen as a big minus by many, but IME it is really an overrated matter.

    Anyway, matching a camera's feature set to one's needs is a personal matter. For example the GH3 video is probably a more widely useful advantage, compared to IS on a sensor used with a few prime lenses that have no in-lens IS, being useful in a few circumstances. Especially more widely useful to pros (the video).

    What is no small matter is IQ, and on that front I thought to share Tuck's latest comments, that the GH3 is the equal of the E-M1. Or better. :smile: Merely as a counterpoint to the comments sometimes seen that the E-M1 plainly beats it for still photos. Comments that may come from reading test reports and number charts...