Kevin's article, "Two Weeks With The Olympus E-M1"

[Hans Kruse]

I am not sure how did you come to 3x higher with 36mp camera w/o EFCS (and mirror slapping in street shooting) with mutually compensating AA filters (instead of not having it) vs 16mp camera with EFCS and no mirror to think about and really w/o any AA filter... somthing is wrong with both math and logic... and I am not even talking about PDAF precision of its focusing points vs CDAF precision in any point of the frame w/ any AF lens of any aperture under any light specturm w/o AF tuning of any kind...

You are mixing up a few things here. If you look at DxO measurements on a D800E and a D7000 you will find that the calculated averaged MP for the D800E and Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR is 30 MP and for the D7000 which is a 16MP crop camera the same calculated MP rating is 9MP. Since the 4/3 sensor is even smaller I would expect that a DxO measurement if there were any (!) would show even less resolution. That's how a came to what I believe is a conervative 3x difference in real resolution. It's clear that any good photographer will have to take ideal resolution into account with shooting situations. Is it on a tripod or low light. The first will most likely give you ideal resolution. The second less, but likely a huge difference still betwen a D800E and a 4/3 camera. is it good enough for the purpose and is it convenient for your needs? That is a totally different consideration and the D800E may not be the preferred choice in a given situation. CDAF may not even give you the shot where PDAF does in most cases and with very good precision. What argue about this? Ask yourself: why does Michael shoot with a Pentax 645z? Probably because this Fuji or Olympus does not cut it. Will always take the Pentax out, no. I may not believe that the Pentax is that much better than the Nikon D810 with the best lenses, but I'm sure there is a difference that will be seen. Is it enough for me to invest in a Pentax system, probably not, because I have different reasons to invest in a camera system. But to argue there is little difference between camera systems is just that.....unproductive. So my main point was really about making comparisons that make sense rather than sensationalism to draw up the line a bit hard.

[Telecaster]

Rhetorical questions:

What's so difficult to grasp about the concept of different camera/lens systems for different purposes?

Why do some of us perceive gear preferences held & expressed by others as existential threats?

Why do we keep having essentially this same fruitless "discussion" repeatedly?

-Dave-

[Manoli]

You are mixing up a few things here. If you look at DxO measurements on a D800E and a D7000 you will find that the calculated averaged MP for the D800E and Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR is 30 MP  ...

You're using the DxO M-pix rating which is a proprietary, undisclosed rating system. Measuring DR, SNR, tonal range or colour sensitivity gives a quantifiable result. M-pix is, as currently disclosed, at least partly subjective.

Your 30Mpix rating for the Nikon f4 zoom should also be judged against the Zeiss 100/f2 macro (23) , the Nikon 50/f1.8 (23) and several other outliers. Perhaps an indication to some, but not a statistic I'd use to base any decision on.

[Ray]

I am not sure what the point Ray is trying to make......the point I am making is that full frame in the Olympus with the zoom 100-300mm lens I was using is the same as using 200-600 on a full frame DSLR.

Kevin Raber

Kevin,
The point that I am making is that this is simply not true and you're admitting as much in the same post when you write :

There is a huge difference in the end of a 16mp vs a 36mp resolution file...

That huge difference would be realized if you were to use a 200-600mm lens with a D800E. However, if a 16mp file is big enough for you because you rarely make huge prints, then a 100-300 lens on the D800E could, on balance, do a better job than a 100-300 lens on the E-M1, assuming one is sufficiently skilled to engage in post-processing such as cropping, which I assume you are. 

At the long end, the E-M1 would have a slight advantage because the cropped D800E file, with the same field of view, would be only 9.4 mp, but at focal lengths wider than, say, 250mm on the E-M1, the D800E would begin to have the resolution advantage all the way to a 50mm equivalent focal length (in relation to the E-M1), which couldn't be achieved with the E-M1 without stitching, assuming you are using a 100-300 zoom.

Is that clear enough? 

[kers]

My reasoning:  you are doing a trip to make photographs - Then it can happen you make this  beautiful shot that you would like to enlarge big- or that needs more detail... you do not know beforehand what you will encounter.
In that case you like to have the best camera available that is easy enough to carry around. For me it is the Nikon d800e... or now d810... I do not think that these cameras are too heavy or to big. I take them into the mountains and anywhere. In fact i do everything with it. It is the camera i know inside out . That is important to me - just to know ONE camera well you think is worth knowing. I do not want my head filled with too much menu clutter of different camera types mixing it all up at some point. i want to use the camera in a reflex.
About the missing of EFS in the d800e - I have used the d800e without any problems with wide, normal and portrait lenses in all circumstances for two years...
I noticed that shuttershake may become of some influence with lenses from 200mm and above.

PS it is different when you shoot people - than i would like a camera with a smaller presence.( maybe the sony 7- completely silent)

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I had an interesting experience, some while ago.

I found a nice spot to shoot, the view was beautiful but light was scarce and it was windy. So I first shot with my Sony Alpha 900 and a 100-300 zoom at 120 mm at perhaps 5.6. That camera is full frame 24 MP.

After that I started to think about shooting with My Sony Alpha 55, that camera is APS-C, 16 MP if I recall. With that camera I had live view (more accurate focus), better high ISO capability and I could use a 24-70/2.8 lens giving me a bit more DoF, aperture and better high ISO capability.

Printed both in A2, it was really hard to choose between the two, but it was the APS-C image that made it to the wall. Would I have printed larger it would be a different case.

I feel that Kevin has a good point, a well designed small format system makes for a small, portable and still capable kit.

Obviously a well designed system with a larger sensor size will mostly be even more capable.

Best regards
Erik

You are mixing up a few things here. If you look at DxO measurements on a D800E and a D7000 you will find that the calculated averaged MP for the D800E and Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR is 30 MP and for the D7000 which is a 16MP crop camera the same calculated MP rating is 9MP. Since the 4/3 sensor is even smaller I would expect that a DxO measurement if there were any (!) would show even less resolution. That's how a came to what I believe is a conervative 3x difference in real resolution. It's clear that any good photographer will have to take ideal resolution into account with shooting situations. Is it on a tripod or low light. The first will most likely give you ideal resolution. The second less, but likely a huge difference still betwen a D800E and a 4/3 camera. is it good enough for the purpose and is it convenient for your needs? That is a totally different consideration and the D800E may not be the preferred choice in a given situation. CDAF may not even give you the shot where PDAF does in most cases and with very good precision. What argue about this? Ask yourself: why does Michael shoot with a Pentax 645z? Probably because this Fuji or Olympus does not cut it. Will always take the Pentax out, no. I may not believe that the Pentax is that much better than the Nikon D810 with the best lenses, but I'm sure there is a difference that will be seen. Is it enough for me to invest in a Pentax system, probably not, because I have different reasons to invest in a camera system. But to argue there is little difference between camera systems is just that.....unproductive. So my main point was really about making comparisons that make sense rather than sensationalism to draw up the line a bit hard.

[PeterAit]

Rhetorical questions:

What's so difficult to grasp about the concept of different camera/lens systems for different purposes?

Why do some of us perceive gear preferences held & expressed by others as existential threats?

Why do we keep having essentially this same fruitless "discussion" repeatedly?

-Dave-

I agree completely with Dave. This thread is a perfect example of the worst aspects of this (generally valuable) forum, the incessant fussing and obsessing with the technical trivia that have nothing to do with good photography. Geez, people, eat a bran muffin and wash it down with a martini. Go take some beautiful photos and DO NOT peep at those pixels!

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I don't know. Personally, if I shoot a great image I want to be able to print large. On the other hand there are other things, like I really like equipment I can carry, and I don't want to spend all my money on equipment, but also on travel.

Best regards
Erik

I agree completely with Dave. This thread is a perfect example of the worst aspects of this (generally valuable) forum, the incessant fussing and obsessing with the technical trivia that have nothing to do with good photography. Geez, people, eat a bran muffin and wash it down with a martini. Go take some beautiful photos and DO NOT peep at those pixels!

[Ray]

I feel that Kevin has a good point, a well designed small format system makes for a small, portable and still capable kit.

Obviously a well designed system with a larger sensor size will mostly be even more capable.

Hi Erik,
I agree completely. The best tool for the job should apply, as always. The issue I've raised relates only to Kevin's equating of a massively bulky and heavy D800E with 150-600 Tamron zoom attached, with the clearly much lighter and easier-to-handle E-M1 with 100-300 zoom attached.

He created the impression in his article that these two options were equivalent, and that choosing the lighter E-M1 option would be a no-brainer in the circumstances.

Now, for anyone who shoots jpegs and never crops, such a comparison might make sense. But I'm not such a person. If you are prepared to crop, and if you are shooting images with an understanding that you have complete control over the 'effective' sensor format of your camera through cropping, then the main issue would be the resolution of the cropped image from the larger sensor.

At 300mm the E-M1 would probably be noticeably better than the 9.4mp crop from the D800E with 300mm lens. On the other hand, the 16mp image from the E-M1 used at 100mm focal length, would not have nearly the resolution of the 36mp D800E image with the 100-300 lens used at the equivalent focal length of 200mm.

In other words, the improved image quality from the D800E towards the wide end of the 100-300 zoom should be more significant than the loss of quality at the long end.

Of course, there are other issues such as shutter shock, shutter noise, and fundamental lens quality.
It would be interesting to see test images demonstrating the significance of such factors.

[markd61]

Rhetorical questions:

What's so difficult to grasp about the concept of different camera/lens systems for different purposes?

Why do some of us perceive gear preferences held & expressed by others as existential threats?

Why do we keep having essentially this same fruitless "discussion" repeatedly?

-Dave-

Amen

[jeremyrh]

Rhetorical question:

Why do people feel the need to justify their choice of gear with spurious technical arguments?

[Hans Kruse]

I agree completely with Dave. This thread is a perfect example of the worst aspects of this (generally valuable) forum, the incessant fussing and obsessing with the technical trivia that have nothing to do with good photography. Geez, people, eat a bran muffin and wash it down with a martini. Go take some beautiful photos and DO NOT peep at those pixels!

Sorry Peter, but this comment is as predictable on this forum as the technical discucsions I'm now off to lead another workshop in Abruzzo and Umbria Italy and will concentrate on taking beautiful photos with the group

It's just ironic that many of the people saying not to look at pixels also comment on pixels Why is it so binary? It should be so clear that to make photographs you need a tool and the tool should should be chosen for the job, but the qualities of the tool cannot be ignored. There it also need to be discussed.

[Hans Kruse]

Rhetorical question:

Why do people feel the need to justify their choice of gear with spurious technical arguments?

I don't think it is like that.

[jeremyrh]

I don't think it is like that.

Well, I know I find reasons why the gear I chose for emotional reasons is "objectively" the best   

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I don't necessarily feel that I have the best equipment for my needs. But:

- I don't exactly know what my needs are. I always wanted a Horsman VH-R but bought a Pentax 67.
- Switching systems is expensive. Do I spend 15k on a new system or just add a 1500$ lens?

Was it not for budget, I would build my system from scratch. Right now, I don't even know where I would start.

Right now, I am interested in Sony A# with those Loxia lenses.

- Why? Because it is full frame, has EVF and takes the Loxia lenses
- Why not? Because I am not so impressed by the A7r
- Why Loxia? Because I am interested in manual focus and don't need large apertures. Also the Loxias are made for Sony.

So I'm waiting for a better version of the Sony A7r.

Best regards
Erik

Well, I know I find reasons why the gear I chose for emotional reasons is "objectively" the best   

[Kevin Raber]

Well, Always interesting to see how these discussions go.  I enjoy the benefit of having a lot of gear.  Comes with the job. What I enjoy more is taking the picture and the pictures I shot with the Olympus on the trip were great.  And, they were shared in the article.  I have 3 17x22 inch prints ready to go up in my office this weekend.  The whole debate on the 100-300 vs 150- 600 lens was about size of the lens to accomplish the same look.  I know what I saw though my lens and I know what lens it would have taken to get the equivalent look in the viewfinder and file.  The image quality is very good.  And, when it come to image quality I think 13 years of working with the largest MF camera sensors available has given me some insight into what image quality is all about.

I'm off next week to lead a PODAS workshop with Steve Golsing and Joe Cornish in Scotland.  We'll be shooting MF Camera as will all attendees.  I'll also have my Fuji XT-1 along for fun and to run it though its paces.  I'll let you know how it does.

Kevin Raber

[Alan Goldhammer]

Well, Always interesting to see how these discussions go.  I enjoy the benefit of having a lot of gear.  Comes with the job. What I enjoy more is taking the picture and the pictures I shot with the Olympus on the trip were great.  And, they were shared in the article. 

This is the right answer!  Some of us may have the resources to purchase multiple sets of gear but choose not to for various reasons.  Even a camera upgrade (one that I'm considering as I have lots of good Nikon lenses) requires careful consideration.  Would I like to have several different format size cameras?  Absolutely.  Will I?  Probably not.

[donbga]

I am not sure what the point Ray is trying to make. 

Exactly!

[Isaac]

What's so difficult to grasp about the concept of different camera/lens systems for different purposes?

Why do we ask rhetorical questions? To distract the reader from the unstated premises our assertions are based upon.

Nothing in particular is "difficult to grasp about the concept of different camera/lens systems for different purposes" and that doesn't tell us that it is the most viable approach for someone else, or the most used approach, or the most useful approach.

Why do some of us perceive gear preferences held & expressed by others as existential threats?

Rather than presume those nameless individuals have a personality defect, the simpler explanation is that they disagree with the reasons given for the preferences expressed by others.

Why do we keep having essentially this same fruitless "discussion" repeatedly?

We like talking about things we think we're knowledgeable about. The same discussion is not "fruitless" because the world changes and that gives the "same" discussion a different basis.

[nma]

Like many of us, I am getting older and interested in lightening my load. I had been shooting the Canon 5Dii, with an array of L lenses, including the 24-105 zoom. The E-M1 with the 12-40 zoom is significantly easier for me to carry for extended periods. Now, working with the E-m1 and the 12-40 mm zoom, I find that the print quality is superior in every way to the 5Dii, up to at least 17x22 in.  There probably is some threshold print size at which the 5Dii will begin to make better prints. Recently, many praised the 5Dii, now something else is better. And I admit it, I still want something that can support giant prints. But the point here is that there is a useful range of situations in which the E-M1 excels.  Can you find something that is better in that range?  Maybe. 

I doubt there are many posters on this forum for whom their equipment is limiting their photography, whatever they are shooting.