Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I'm beginning to wonder if the OMD may be viable as an alternative to my D700 when shooting gallery openings for the following reasons:
I can manually focus it in similar conditions that I can the Nikon ... in some ways possibly a little more easily due to the EVF's brightness in low light.
It's very small physically and the shutter sound is unobtrusive compared to the D700.
It doesn't have the high ISO capabilities of the D700 and is realistically a stop and half behind. That said with a 17.5 f0.95 Nokton on it I should be able to shoot it comfortably at ISO 1600 in pretty near any type of light I've encountered so far where I'm using the Nikon at 6400 with a 35mm f2 lens. I gather the depth of field of the Nokton should be similar to the 35mm f2 I use on the D700 ... or would it be substantially less?
The OMD's MFT sensor would be unlikely to have the dynamic range of the full frame Nikon but at 1600 it wouldn't too be far away from the Nikon at 6400 I suspect? The Oly files are pretty clean at 1600 ... the Nikon's at 6400 require a fair bit of work depending on the exposure.
It has image stabilization ... surely that would be a plus. I'm frequently using the D700 down to 1/8 and occasionally 1/4 second in the darker areas of the gallery.
If I did pony up for the Nokton ($1095.00 here in Oz) and the combination didn't cut it after all, I suspect the Nokton wouldn't be too hard to get rid off and my loss should be minimal. The lens is pretty big and not really a 35mm equivalent I'd want attached to the camera for casual shooting ... but compared to the D700 and 35mm Zeiss it's a baby!
These are just passing thoughts at this stage ... though I'd be interested to hear opinions based on the known capabilities of the camera.
I can manually focus it in similar conditions that I can the Nikon ... in some ways possibly a little more easily due to the EVF's brightness in low light.
It's very small physically and the shutter sound is unobtrusive compared to the D700.
It doesn't have the high ISO capabilities of the D700 and is realistically a stop and half behind. That said with a 17.5 f0.95 Nokton on it I should be able to shoot it comfortably at ISO 1600 in pretty near any type of light I've encountered so far where I'm using the Nikon at 6400 with a 35mm f2 lens. I gather the depth of field of the Nokton should be similar to the 35mm f2 I use on the D700 ... or would it be substantially less?
The OMD's MFT sensor would be unlikely to have the dynamic range of the full frame Nikon but at 1600 it wouldn't too be far away from the Nikon at 6400 I suspect? The Oly files are pretty clean at 1600 ... the Nikon's at 6400 require a fair bit of work depending on the exposure.
It has image stabilization ... surely that would be a plus. I'm frequently using the D700 down to 1/8 and occasionally 1/4 second in the darker areas of the gallery.
If I did pony up for the Nokton ($1095.00 here in Oz) and the combination didn't cut it after all, I suspect the Nokton wouldn't be too hard to get rid off and my loss should be minimal. The lens is pretty big and not really a 35mm equivalent I'd want attached to the camera for casual shooting ... but compared to the D700 and 35mm Zeiss it's a baby!
These are just passing thoughts at this stage ... though I'd be interested to hear opinions based on the known capabilities of the camera.
hausen
Well-known
Keith your threads aren't helping me resist this camera. Am mainly shooting film these days and having money tied up in my M9 makes me think of an OMD. Trying to resist.
gavinlg
Veteran
Hahaha... I know this feeling. Keith I'm following your progression curiously. All I can say is when you get that panasonic 25mm, take it to an exhibition along with your d700 and try it out! if you can make it work with the summilux, you'll surely make it work with the nokton 17.5mm.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
That's the logical thing to do of course Gav ... you're right! If I can make it work with f1.4 ... f0.95 should be a cinch.
I'd also be curious to see how the camera's auto white balance handles the conditions ... the next gig is four weeks away unfortunately.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I came close to an M9 ... I'm actually very glad I resisted now!
What are they asking for the OMD with a kit lens in the land of the long white cloud?
robert blu
quiet photographer
Keith, knowing (from the web of course) your photographic skill your thoughts and comments about the OM 5 are very interesting. I'll follow them and this camera is so...tempting...
robert
robert
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Thanks Robert.
I think this OMD has turned out to be more camera than we suspected. It just seemed like a nice little retro micro four thirds at first and definitely a hook for any OM fan with the styling. It's functionality matches it's looks IMO!
It wasn't until I tried focusing it manually that I realised the potential for very low light shooting. I still think it's a shame that the X100 doesn't fit the bill in this area because that's a great little camera also.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
Keith, the OMD can handle the situation you described without any problems. Over at Steve Huff's site, he compared the lowlight capabilities of the OMD and the Nikon D800. Check it out. The OMD is turning out to be quite the little monster.
- Keith
- Keith
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
My real concern (and time will tell) is how the Oly's sensor will handle the conditions I shoot in. Even the D700 blows the highlights of the video monitors if I'm careless and when I do get the exposures correct for the monitors I generally have to work a little in post to recover detail from the shadows ... often I can't but you can only do what you can do and I've learned to accept that.
I think being able able to use the OMD at 1600 or maybe even 800 will help the situation considerably. The sensor in the Nikon is brilliant as we all know ... if the OMD's sensor can come withing a few percent of it's dynamic range I'll be fine and this will be helped by using a lower ISO.
Handling wise I know the thing would be perfect ... it's just so intuative to use.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I'm really hoping that someone who has actually used the 17.5 Nokton sees this thread and can tell me how hard it is to focus quickly and just how severe it's depth of field is!
lynnb
Veteran
What software are you using to pp the OM-D files, Keith? And... is there any info from users about which software gets the best results at high iso and low light? In my digital experience, software and pp technique are just as important to the end result. Perhaps you are yet to see the actual limits of the OM-D files?
hipsterdufus
Photographer?
Keith,
It looks like they have about equivalent DOF at the same shooting distance. See the depth of field calculator here to calculate your depth of field for each lens at a given distance.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
At the moment I'm using the raw converter in Olympus Viewer 2 to convert them to tifs than PPing them in ACDSee Pro which is what I use for the Nikon's files.
The Olympus software is actually pretty decent IMO though I'm hoping that the latest version of ACDSee (pro 5) will support the ORFs from the OMD ... I need to check this out before I get the latest version ... I''m still using Pro 3.
I can't get my head around Lightroom and don't really like the interface ... I've been using ACDSee for seven or eight years now and know it inside out so I'm reluctant to change ... though I will if I have to!
It's a bit hard to judge the OMD's files at the moment because I really don't think much of that 14-42 lens ... it's soft towards the edges IMO.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Thanks ... that's good, it means that I'd be working with a similar depth of field as the Nikon and 35mm f2 Distagon. It's looking promising.
I'm very used to the 35mm field of view in a gallery ... it's a perfect balance.
rbelyell
Well-known
keith ive found the OMD to produce quite useable, and surprisingly good, files up to 3200. also, ive found its white balance in difficult situations better than my old 5d or my new x100. i wouldnt anticipate picking up much over your nikon in terms of SS.
tony
tony
maitani
Well-known
as much as I want to like the new Olympus, it's not for me, despite the enormous hype running, (which is new and good for olympus), It doesn't scream 'buy me' (to me..) it feels too robot for, just like the nex7, all smooth and fast but no connection.. good files , af, great colour. good ergonomics (with the grip..)
I rather think the retro design and the viewfinder (which the GH-1 has since many years..in very similar quality) helped the m4/3 system to finally gain broader acceptance in the advanced user market, In long term I thinking you'll be better off with a well used Leica M9 (sorry Keith, I know you were almost over it...) prices on M9 might drop with photokina later this year... files out of the M9 are just jaw dropping (i don't own one but I had the pleasure to test one recently...) at low iso, paired with older or newer lenses, M-lenses can be adapted basically anywhere. you can get a used cheapo E-P3 as quick and small m4/3 body (which does 95% the om-d does btw..), I don't see the E-M5 as full fledged D700 replacement anytime soon, DR, Dof, pixelquality still lags behing in real world use, on studio scenes the difference is not that big an can be neglected if you can live with the Dof penalty (or benefit) of the sensor, for sure it is a great allround camera which does most of the things well, before sinking 4-digit amounts in small sensor optizimed lenses which are a 'one way - one system thing...' , I would double think, the OM-D with 3 super lenses sets you back (much) more than a used Fullframe camra with 3 excellent primes, it's the price you pay for the size, but the sensor size just don't cut it (for me)
I rather think the retro design and the viewfinder (which the GH-1 has since many years..in very similar quality) helped the m4/3 system to finally gain broader acceptance in the advanced user market, In long term I thinking you'll be better off with a well used Leica M9 (sorry Keith, I know you were almost over it...) prices on M9 might drop with photokina later this year... files out of the M9 are just jaw dropping (i don't own one but I had the pleasure to test one recently...) at low iso, paired with older or newer lenses, M-lenses can be adapted basically anywhere. you can get a used cheapo E-P3 as quick and small m4/3 body (which does 95% the om-d does btw..), I don't see the E-M5 as full fledged D700 replacement anytime soon, DR, Dof, pixelquality still lags behing in real world use, on studio scenes the difference is not that big an can be neglected if you can live with the Dof penalty (or benefit) of the sensor, for sure it is a great allround camera which does most of the things well, before sinking 4-digit amounts in small sensor optizimed lenses which are a 'one way - one system thing...' , I would double think, the OM-D with 3 super lenses sets you back (much) more than a used Fullframe camra with 3 excellent primes, it's the price you pay for the size, but the sensor size just don't cut it (for me)
jpfisher
Well-known
I've been shooting it on an EPL3 for the past week or so. It's big and heavy for that camera, but should balance very well with an E-M5 + handgrip. I can focus fairly fast with the rear screen of the PL3 or the VF-2 EVF, assuming I magnify. At f/0.95 it's a bit, let's say dreamy--purple fringing, soft around the edges, but by f/1.4 it's very nice and by f/2 it is excellent.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Thanks for the feedback on the lens ... I've actually sent an enquiry to Mainline Photo who is the CV distributor here to find out the delay involved inn supplying one. They don't have stock but they are taking orders currently.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I understand what you're saying but I'm not shooting images for billboards here. A small discrete camera that produces acceptable files is of value in my situation. The M9 is realistically a stop better than an M8 and I used an M8 and it drove me insane even with an f1.2 lens ... the files were horrible at anything over 320 ISO in the conditions I shoot in.
The D700 seems to scream 'get out of my way' when I use it I've noticed ... to it's credit the M8 never had this effect on people!
paulfish4570
Veteran
someone has fallen in love ...