Sony NEX-5R vs Olympus OM-D E-M5?

[tdawg]

Between the two, I'd choose the OM-D in a heartbeat, but that's because I grew up on my dad's OM-1 camera. If I could justify it, I'd own one along with my D90.

 

[blastingcap]

he said it only after being called out for this doozy:




mft lenses can't be simply stated as being 'as large' as APS-C lenses because they simply arent. based upon laws of optical physics. equivalent MFT lenses are that much smaller and lighter than equivalent APS-C lenses for a reason.

sure you can say a panny 12-35mm is heavier and as large as a nifty fifty f1.8 on FF therefore what's the point of using MFT if you are going to use a lens as heavy and as big as one you can get on FF. the problem is the panny 12-35mm on MFT is comparable to a 17-552.8 on APS-C and a 24-702.8 on FF. now you see the difference?

if you arent comparing equivalents, what are you comparing then? nothing. it's a useless point. lens size and weight is relative to what it accomplishes as a lens, with FOV range and aperture included in the equation. and as a rule of thumb, an MFT lens designed for MFT that performs the same primary functions and quality as an APS-C lens is smaller and lighter. every time.

What "doozy"? You selectively quoted and are basing your "call out" on only part of my post. Here's the context: OP wanted to go mirrorless from his existing DX DSLR, and is choosing between the APS-C NEX and the MFT E-M5. So I asked him, what is the point of going away from DSLR if you have to use DSLR-sized lenses. That was a reference to NEX, not MFT or Nikon 1. The only way that would be ambiguous is if you only read the selective quote, but I went on to recommend MFT/Nikon 1 if size were an issue--the obvious implication being that not all mirrorless was created equal and that MFT/Nikon 1 used smaller lenses on average.

This is the entirety of my first post--NOT selectively quoted. I bolded the part you seem to have missed:

What is the point of going mirrorless if you are going to just use DX/APS-C sized or FX sized lenses anyway? You get more bang for the buck with free optical viewfinder, no viewfinder lag, and functional PDAF for less money and much broader lens, flash, etc. support.

If you're going to go mirrorless for size reasons, then MFT (if you don't shoot fast action) or Nikon 1 (if you do shoot fast action) may be better bets, though they, too, cost more than DSLRs and DSLR gear. And note that Canon's latest mini-DSLR is as small as the EM-5 (let's stop calling it the OM-D as that's not the actual model number) but will suffer from the same APS-C-sized-lenses problem as NEX.

When you attacked me personally I reiterated what I said in different words, and as you can see there is ZERO ambiguity (I bolded part of it for emphasis):

I have owned and operated four different MFT cameras. I have owned and operated the 14mm f/2.5, 25mm f/1.4, Oly 9-18 M.Zuiko, 40-150, 55-200 (actually I just borrowed that one), 100-300, and 45/1.8. I have a pretty damned good idea of what MFT sizes are. I have lost count of how many DX and FX lenses I've used.

In general, with certain exceptions, lenses built for APS-C/DX/FX will be bigger than for MFT. There are exceptions mainly for wideangles due to the shorter register distance and with collapsible "power zoom" designs that fold out when active and fold in when not, but what I said was generally true for the same FX-equivalent focal lengths and why NEX will always be behind MFT when it comes to overall system size.

If you are unable to point out what was wrong with my post then perhaps nothing was wrong with it and you should crawl back under your rock before your embarrass yourself further with your insulting, condescending posts.

You responded with this charming post:

i have to prove your point wrong?

just because you can say 'bacon is vegetarian' doesn't mean i have to prove it wrong because you believe it because you said it, so therefore it has merit and basis in reality.

you are still clueless. mft lenses are generally far smaller than their aps-c equivalents when it comes to apples vs apples. maybe pictures will help you since you seem to think you know something about photography

17-55IS f2.8 vs 12-35IS f2.8. i owned both. the MFT version is half the weight. actually a bit less than half the weight. check the specs. same speed, very comparable IQ.

MFT are like APS-C versions? sure, if you are deaf, dumb & blind and think pounds are the same as kilograms.

At this point you are simply trolling or are completely freaking horrible at reading comprehension. Because while you may selectively quote and argue that I could have been clearer in my first post, my second post had ZERO ambiguity and you kept on attacking anyway. Way to go.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

he said it only after being called out for this doozy:


Quote:
Originally Posted by blastingcap
What is the point of going mirrorless if you are going to just use DX/APS-C sized or FX sized lenses anyway? You get more bang for the buck with free optical viewfinder, no viewfinder lag, and functional PDAF for less money and much broader lens, flash, etc. support.

🙄 Pix, you're making a fool of yourself...

His point is that if you are going with a mirrorless APS-C size sensor then a DSLR is a better buy with more features and more lense options. His very next paragraph is to suggest M4/3 if you are going to go mirrorless to save on size. Whether he is right or wrong on the DSLR vs. Mirrorless DX/FX he is NOT saying that M4/3 and AFS-C cameras have the same size lenses.

You misread. Get over it and move along!

 

[MrSquished]

🙄 Pix, you're making a fool of yourself...

His point is that if you are going with a mirrorless APS-C size sensor then a DSLR is a better buy with more features and more lense options. His very next paragraph is to suggest M4/3 if you are going to go mirrorless to save on size. Whether he is right or wrong on the DSLR vs. Mirrorless DX/FX he is NOT saying that M4/3 and AFS-C cameras have the same size lenses.

You misread. Get over it and move along!

i disagree. and now that you quoted him again and i re-read his entire statement, it includes even more rather incorrect and misleading claims which make it even worse advice.

i apologize for being a bit rude in tone in my earlier responses, but not in actual fundamental meaning.

You get more bang for the buck with free optical viewfinder,

what does this mean? free optical viewfinder? does this mean that makers of single lens reflex cameras with optical viewfinders charge us for every other part of the camera but the mirrored optical viewfinder part they throw in for free? i really don't think so.

sorry. it's not a good statement to make.

number one, canon and nikon and sony and whichever company has ever and continues to sell an SLR system with optical viewfinders is charging us for every component in that camera, including optical viewfinder. and on top of that, it comes with an additional cost - size. a major point of mirrorless cameras is they enable size reductions on the body by removing the mirror part of it. the mirror part is what gives us good optical viewfinders, it also gives us a bigger size. it's not just by sensor size that MFT cameras get smaller, it's because, well, they are 'mirrorless'.

the point is, nothing is free. and sure optical viewfinders are great in many ways, but they certainly aren't free - not by price and not by size. live views that perform on par with MFT systems are very good. live view LCD's are not for everyone, including myself, as people prefer having their eye pressed up onto a viewfinder, and EVF's have come a long way. they even have some advantages over optical in how they can display information, such as showing you the changes in exposure in real time as you change settings.

are some laggy? sure, in some situations, but his statement that it is this crazy advantage that is hands down is simply incorrect. the fact of the matter is EVF's have evolved to the point that they now have advantages vs optical viewfinders, just as each has negatives.

another statement from his quote:

What is the point of going mirrorless if you are going to just use DX/APS-C sized or FX sized lenses anyway? You get more bang for the buck....... with functional PDAF

his point is what? he states it such that PDAF is automatically superior to anything else out there. sorry, been proven BS. CDAF systems are excellent in their own regard. if he wants to have a debate on that source to source i am more than ok with it. the fact is PDAF does have a noticeable advantage in many situations that require continuous autofocus. CDAF is known for being highly accurate in single shot AF scenarios however. and it can be decent in C-AF scenarios but it's not on the PDAF level yet for sure.

but his statement takes none of this into account. it just states PDAF is better. well it's not. many, if not a majority of photographers, use single shot AF. so how is that an advantage to them? it's not.

what one has to do is take into account what you shoot and what you use. in some cases PDAF right now is better for you. in other cases, CDAF is as good if not better for you. therefore again his statement was wrong, overly generalized and bad information.

another statement:

What is the point of going mirrorless ..... much broader lens, flash, etc. support.

somewhat informative finally. you can see that myself, and many others who talk about MFT routinely mention the lens selection (especially in discussion of mirrorless systems like the NEX vs the FUJI system vs MFT). so mentioning lens selection as a criteria is a point in the relevancy column. at some point selection becomes a point of diminishing return. NEX is catching up, MFT is at a very good point in that right now (save for the telephoto range) and of course nothign beats the very mature system of dslr's right now. but it's not just a simple statement of more is better anymore. it's about what has enough variety for your style of shooting. so a decent statement but based upon where it is coming from the other not so good statements, well, you know.

and then this:

What is the point of going mirrorless if you are going to just use DX/APS-C sized or FX sized lenses anyway?

i stand by that it does not make sense really.it doesn't really mean anything.

is it because a very sharp, high IQ and fast panny 12-35mm f2.8 IS lens on MFT is the same size as a mediocre 18-55 slow-ass kit lens on an FX sensor it makes no sense to put it on an MFT body - even though it performs on a level similar to the far larger and heavier 17-55f2.8IS APS-C lens or 24-70 f2.8 FF lenses? does it mean because a very sharp and very high IQ Oly 60mm macro is the same weight as a cheap nifty fifty f1.8 lens on FX that what's the point?

sorry. the statement is nonsensical. i had those lenses. and it's a consistent advantage of MFT - lens size compared to APS-C and FF when comparing equivalent quality. my 60mm oly macro is essentially on par with my old canon 100mm macro, very close in price, weight and size difference? massive. my panny 12-35 - very simliar IQ ratings vs my 17-55EFS lens, similar price a bit more, massive size and weight difference. my oly 9-18mm vs my old sigma 10-20EX lens - very simlar IQ, size and weight difference - very significant. difference of 16mm ff vs 18mm ff is also noticeable, advantage sigma. but the story repeats itself across MFT lenses vs APS-C and FF across the board.

his statement is far too vague, non-informative and mis-informative because all it's saying is that an MFT lens can be similar in size to an APS-C lens so what is the point.

well the point is there is a lot more to that equation, therefore, the statement is not good.





Quit crapping the thread. You misread the original post by blastingcap and have just continued to dig yourself further in.

AT Moderator ElFenix

 

[JohnnyRebel]

WOW! That's a lot of words to justify...something. Disagreeing with his opinion still doesn't change the fact that you started by refuted something that he never said:

mft lenses can't be simply stated as being 'as large' as APS-C lenses because they simply aren’t. based upon laws of optical physics. equivalent MFT lenses are that much smaller and lighter than equivalent APS-C lenses for a reason.

I have a lot of trouble believing that you are the shooter associated with the link on your posts...I love those shots. Maybe it's the whole left-brain right-brain thing.

 

[AkumaX]

sooooooooo... should i upgrade my 5N to the 5R or what?

 

[blastingcap]

WOW! That's a lot of words to justify...something. Disagreeing with his opinion still doesn't change the fact that your started by refuted something that he never said:

I have a lot of trouble believing that you are the shooter associated with the link on your posts...I love those shots. Maybe it's the whole left-brain right-brain thing.

That guy's post history makes it clear that he is super-argumentative and super-defensive about mirrorless and especially MFT. Still, it takes a special kind of stupid to repeatedly misread someone who is agreeing with him. I'm not sure he even reads' other posts; perhaps he just likes to argue.

argumentative stuff here

To address some topics: in theory mirrorless should cost less since they have fewer parts. Duh. He seems to have missed REALITY which is that DSLRs have massive volumes so that economies of scale make it so that even today, CaNikon entry-to-midrange DSLRs often outspec their mirrorless competition despite costing less or the same. And mirrorless marketshare growth rate has been slowing down for a while now: http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/panasonics-mirrorless-claim.html For similar reasons you can get lots of cheap and good lenses for DSLRs, but mirrorless equivalent lenses often cost more. Economies of scale. Look at the price of the CaNikon normal primes vs the MFT and NEX primes for instance. Even factoring in OSS the Sony primes are pretty richly priced when compared to lenses like the Nikon 35/1.8 AF-S or Canon nifty fifty. You can get a Tamron 17-50 non-VC for a few hundred.. where is the equivalent for NEX/MFT/N1/NX/Fuji? Etc.

If one doesn't value such DSLR advantages and can make do with lack of functional AF-C and lack of EVF then the bang-for-buck equation isn't so bad for mirrorless, but many enthusiasts care about viewfinders.

I never said that everyone values PDAF or nonlaggy OVFs the same way. Notice how he selectively quoted me again to pick a fight again. This dude needs to stop putting words into people's mouths... I have NEVER said that PDAF is "automatically" "better" than CDAF. Yes, there are reasons to go mirrorless other than lens size but I suspected that size was OP's reason and said that if that was his goal, then MFT/Nikon 1 would be better for shrinking the system.

I also pointed out that DSLR bang for the buck is pretty good vs mirrorless right now if you care about stuff like OVF which you get automatically with every DSLR--not after paying $250 for an EVF or having to buy a higher-end mirrorless just to get an EVF. (Feature for feature, something like a D5200 is a good value vs. most mirrorless cameras; the NEX-6 and E-M5 are competitive in many ways with it but cost more as well and have less selection of lenses and accessories.) And CDAF accuracy is overrated--you get accuracy but if the system focuses on what you didn't want it to focus on, that sucks. Fact of the matter is that PDAF is useful. Multiple generations of shooters used PDAF for sports, weddings, etc. and Nikon and Sony have sought to put hybrid PDAF onto their mirrorless cameras for a reason. PDAF and CDAF both have their uses.

Pixel, please stop it about that one sentence you pull out of context over and over again where I was commenting on NEX lens sizes (OP was choosing between MFT and NEX). You interpreted it to mean lens sizes, so don't try to rewrite history by shoehorning other things into it. In my second post in this thread it is absolutely 100% clear that we agree with each other re: lens sizes, yet you chose to continue to attack me anyway because you misread what I wrote--AGAIN. You are so busy trying to start fights that you even try to start fights with people who agree with you. 🙄

It's almost like you purposely misread people to pick fights and sprays all these strawman arguments all over the place, claiming I said things I never said. Even when we agree, you selectively quote to make believe that there is disagreement where there is none.

Sorry but you are going on my Ignore List. Go back and read the nastiness you brought into this thread. You should be ashamed of yourself.

To everyone else: I have taken a long circuitous route through DSLRs, mirrorless, and compact premium cameras that I already discussed in this thread. I have no agenda, unlike some superdefensive fanboys. I am not pushing any particular kind of camera. We live in a world with many choices in photographic equipment right now and should feel blessed for it. I'm glad OP seems to like his new gear.

sooooooooo... should i upgrade my 5N to the 5R or what?

Too small of an upgrade since they have virtually the same sensor and level of control. Supposedly the big upgrade is hybrid AF, going from 5N to 5R, yet the hybrid AF doesn't work that well, so what's the point? The NEX-6 has similar hybrid AF slowness and also lacks the touchscreen, though you get an EVF at least.

IMHO, you might as well wait for whatever comes after the NEX-6, assuming that future model has better-functioning hybrid AF.

 

[Tom]

About the 5r and hybrid auto-focus..

I've seen it referred to in the same way in various places, that its not effective, but I've also read and actually observed that it works quite effectively in some situations.

For instance it seems to stop the hunting that cdaf does, I think cdaf goes past the focus point and then back as part of its design whereas pdaf stops at the focus point.

I wonder if this evaluation that Sony's hybrid autofocus is ineffective is based on it only working with some lenses, meaning some people assume it doesn't ever work ?

 

[vbuggy]

$1100 for a micro4/3 camera that isn't even small? Is that some kind of joke?

But, but... it's retro and stuffs.

I wasn't actually blown away - maybe because at the time I had exposure to a wider range of gear. If I was happy with the lens selection I would personally take a NEX-6 over it, but the Oly is 'I'm a pro' / hipster catnip.

 

[cantholdanymore]

But, but... it's retro and stuffs.

I wasn't actually blown away - maybe because at the time I had exposure to a wider range of gear. If I was happy with the lens selection I would personally take a NEX-6 over it, but the Oly is 'I'm a pro' / hipster catnip.

Haters gonna hate

 

[MrSquished]

But, but... it's retro and stuffs.

I wasn't actually blown away - maybe because at the time I had exposure to a wider range of gear. If I was happy with the lens selection I would personally take a NEX-6 over it, but the Oly is 'I'm a pro' / hipster catnip.

or maybe it's just a camera for those who utilize its features to take nice pics

 

[vbuggy]

Have you owned both?

 

[mchammer187]

Have you considered Fuji XE-1 or X-Pro1 I wouldn't use it for sports but for everything else it is good. has a nice APS-C sized sensor in a package similarly sized to the OMD. The lens lineup is very good and can accept leica M mount lenses via adapter.

Of those two I would pick the OM-D