Re: [OM] TOP - DxO Gives OM-D High Marks

Subject: Re: [OM] TOP - DxO Gives OM-D High Marks
From: "Carlos J. Santisteban" <zuiko21@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 12:37:30 +0200
Hi Frank, Chris and all,

From: Frank Wijsmuller <wijsmuller@xxxxxxxxx>

>If you want to know how the E-M5 scored *as a package* then read the

>DPreview conclusion of the E-M5 test: "...The E-M5 can't completely

>overcome the light capture disadvantage brought by its smaller sensor,

>compared to APS-C, but it reduces it to the point that it's irrelevant for

>almost all practical purposes. At which point we think its size advantage,

>in terms of both body and lenses, will outweigh that difference for most


I agree, especially about the *lenses*. Finally, we have that 12-35mm
constant F2.8 zoom available from Panny -- it makes a world of difference!
Because the E-M5+12-35 combo isn't much bigger (if any) than an APS-C DSLR
with a kit F5.6 zoom, while the faster lens in a way compensates for the
sensor size difference -- on both low-light performance and DOF control.

If we go longer, things get even better. These holidays, most of my pics
were taken by the 12-35, of course; but second most used lens was the
(manual) Canon 'New' FD 100mm F2 -- much smaller than its Zuiko equivalent
and a pretty good performer, if a bit smooth wide open -- and it 'became'
stabilised on the E-M5 ;-) While in DOF terms it's the equal of a
conventional 200/4 on FF, in exposure terms would be a monster of a 200/2;
even for APS-C, a 135/2 lens is going to be a much larger item than this 53
mm long, 445 gr lightweight Canon.

From: Chris Barker <ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

>I was merely remarking, perhaps in a rather obscure way, that the E-M5
might have been

>given a good writeup by DxO, but that it was still not that good in the
context of cameras of

>that supposed quality.

Define 'that supposed quality' ;-) Seriously, I agree with Frank that
there's much more to a camera than the sensor. The E-M5 isn't "perfect" by
any means, and surely isn't the camera for everyone and/or everything… but
seeing it as a system, particularly when mated to Panny's 12-35, it
definitely is a *very* capable tool.

In fact, this is the *first* time ever that a 'standard' zoom is
"acceptable" to me. ALL previous offerings, no matter the brand or format,
were either too slow, too big or had a limited range or poor quality --
sometimes, more than one of these 'flaws'. Particularly about F2.8 zooms:
an APS-C DSLR with a big lens on it is going (at least in my case) to be
collecting dust in the closet, while the "supposedly inferior" E-M5+12-35
fits inside my go-everywhere small bag, ready for taking the picture.
That's the point of it.

>I've read some of the DPR review, but that's nothing to do with my comment
on Moose's


OK, the EVF issue. Once again, this time is more then 'good enough' for me
;-) It was already acceptable on the X100 (which anyway is easily
switchable with an excellent, but not WYSIWYG, optical one) and this one is
much better -- it isn't a MPix matter only. I do like a *good* OVF, like
the one on the Contax RTS-II. But the digital picture is most likely to be
seen on a computer screen, thus I better get an accurate idea of the final
result, instead of 'previewing' what won't be captured by the sensor
anyway… That possibility of shadow/highlight clipping preview _before_
exposure is a *very* convenient feature.

But, as usual, all of the above is rather subjective, so please take it
with a grain of salt… ;-)

Carlos J. Santisteban Salinas
IES Turaniana (Roquetas de Mar, Almeria)
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>