OM-d vs D7000: Olympus SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review (2024)

JohanPwrote:

Now I have the D7000 and is pretty happy with it. But, I don't like the "tunnel" like viewfinder and I want a smaller camera.

What do you think about:
Can I expect the OM-d to deliver as good photo quality as the D7000?

Maybe.

What drawbacks can I expect with the EVF?

The EVF used is similar to, but not quite as good as, that used in the Sony NEX 7.

How is the Af for moving targets compared to D7000?

That's unknown. On paper, it looks good.

I would like to have a faster normal zoom lens - suggestions

Possibly the Panasonic 12-35 and 35-100 "X" lenses would be suitable. My concern is that they will be priced very high and depend on in-camera corrections that Olympus can't perform.

Unfortunately, the zoom lens line-up is very mediocre, IMO. The Panasonic 7-14 mm and Olympus 9-18 mm are probably the best available zooms, so if you want a wide-angle then you're reasonably covered. Telephoto, though, means dropping down to distinctly "low end" grade lenses.

You should wait until the reviews are in on the E-M5 and then evaluate the available lenses.

olyflyerwrote:

szleviwrote:

d3xmeisterwrote:

Drawback of EVF is lag and the feeling you are watching a low resolution TV, not reality.

Are you high? It's a 120fps 1.4M EVF, what kind of lag and low-res are you talking about?

It's probably the stupidest comment about this EVFs in a long time.

That depends on your expectations. 1.4MP is definitely low resolution for a TV as is 120fps. 1.4 MP and 120fp is very good for EVF but it is still very far from real time OVF in some situations.

Nonsense. Fort starter FYI 1.4 million pixels is halfway between 1280x720 and 1920x1080, both clearly HD resolutions. Whoever thinks it's a low resolution for a TV he's clearly clueless about the subject. Mind you it's a tiny EVF so this many pixels should look awesome.
As for 120fps it is pretty much totally fluent for anything.

Well, I not sure that's strictly true, my experience with a loaned D7000 was that it tended to overexpose, and the output in print was not as satisfying as that from my E30, but maybe that was because the nikon lenses I had were not (IMO), as good as the 11-22mm and 14-54mm I use regularly.

Nevertheless, what I predict what will happen is that the OM-D (in my case the E-P3), will become the camera that you automatically take everywhere,....it's just a delight to carry, and the lens availability is improving,....just received th 45mm 1.8, now that's an absolute steal for the money.

Rgds, Rob
--
Give a wise man instruction and he is yet wiser !

Olympus E500, E520, E30, 14-45mm, 40-150mm, 11-22mm, 14-54mm, 70-300mm, 25mm 'Pancake' , FL36R

Bangerwrote:

....just received th 45mm 1.8, now that's an absolute steal for the money.

It is more expensive than say Nikon 50/1.8, which on Dx (D7000) will give you more photographic freedom than 45/1.8 on FT. Nothing really special in it, really.

Sergey N Greenwrote:

Bangerwrote:

....just received th 45mm 1.8, now that's an absolute steal for the money.

It is more expensive than say Nikon 50/1.8, which on Dx (D7000) will give you more photographic freedom than 45/1.8 on FT. Nothing really special in it, really.

There was always a good reason why 65~75 mm effective FL prime lenses were unpopular with users and manufacturers alike. They are neither one thing nor the other.

The most common FLs for portrait and other short telephoto work were always 85~105 up to around 135 mm, with many manufacturers settling on fast 90 mm lenses (Leitz, etc, etc).

And besides, your point of making this post was what, exactly?

Or just more Nikon fanboy trolling?
Business as usual for you.

I really shouldn't refer to you like that.

It does a disservice to all my friends who use Nikon gear and who are also very nice, amiable, decent people who don't have a huge ticket hanging off themselves; or what gear they choose to use ...

Oh, I keep on forgetting, you are paid to do this ...
Why else would you bother?

Sergey N Greenwrote:

It is more expensive than say Nikon 50/1.8, which on Dx (D7000) will give you more photographic freedom than 45/1.8 on FT. Nothing really special in it, really.

Well, the Nikon 50/1.8 is a cheap lens but the performance on DX isn't anywhere near the Olympus m4/3 45mm f1.8, just check the resolution and comments for each of them here:

http://www.lenstip.com/316.1-Lens_review-Olympus_M.Zuiko_Digital_45_mm_f_1.8-Introduction.html

http://www.lenstip.com/219.1-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF_50_mm_f_1.8D-Introduction.html

Rgds, Rob
--
Give a wise man instruction and he is yet wiser !

Olympus E500, E520, E30, 14-45mm, 40-150mm, 11-22mm, 14-54mm, 70-300mm, 25mm 'Pancake' , FL36R

John Kingwrote:

There was always a good reason why 65~75 mm effective FL prime lenses were unpopular with users and manufacturers alike. They are neither one thing nor the other.

That does not include Pentax primes lineup, I suppose. And of course some of the best FF lenses as Nikon 60/2.8 {recently redesigned}, Tamron 60/2 {why is it f/2?} , and of course Sigma 70/2.8 macro.

What was the reason anyway?

Bangerwrote:

Sergey N Greenwrote:

It is more expensive than say Nikon 50/1.8, which on Dx (D7000) will give you more photographic freedom than 45/1.8 on FT. Nothing really special in it, really.

Well, the Nikon 50/1.8 is a cheap lens but the performance on DX isn't anywhere near the Olympus m4/3 45mm f1.8, just check the resolution and comments for each of them here:

http://www.lenstip.com/316.1-Lens_review-Olympus_M.Zuiko_Digital_45_mm_f_1.8-Introduction.html

http://www.lenstip.com/219.1-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF_50_mm_f_1.8D-Introduction.html

I do not see anything that is "not anywhere near .." in one over the other. Except that you should not be comparing them as f/1.4 vs f/1.4 when mounted on different formats. I briefly had 50/1.8 lens once, it was quite a good I thought, but I kept 50/1.4 instead. Which again, even on Dx, does what you can not do with Olympus cameras. You may argue it is not a big difference, but it is a difference nevertheless.

Sergey N Greenwrote:

I do not see anything that is "not anywhere near .." in one over the other.

Let's look at the facts, then.

The mZD 45 mm f/1.8 is better in:

• Resolution (maximums of 76 lpmm at f/2.8 vs 46.4 lpmm at f/5.6)

• Chromatic aberration

• Coma and astigmatism

• Vignetting (21% vs. 35%)

• Ghosting and flare (different effects on each lens, though)

• AF (CDAF outperforms PDAF, but the Nikkor had a reported 15% failure rate).

The Nikkor AF 50 mm f/1.8D is better in:

• Distortion (0.20% vs. 0.68%)

• Price (US$130 vs. US$400).

Both lenses seem to have decent build-quality, with the Nikkor having a distance scale and physical manual focus control as advantages.

As John pointed out, the 50 mm on APS-C amounts to a 75 mm EFL compared to the 45 mm on FT amounting to a 90 mm EFL. The 90 mm EFL is a more usual choice, and is closer to the 85 mm that appears to be the present "default portrait lens focal length" on 135 systems.

A better choice on Nikon APS-C might be the AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8G ED Macro at US$560. It is a fair bit slower than the mZD, but seems a good lens overall and certainly better than the cheap 50 mm you suggested.

Sergey N Greenwrote:

John Kingwrote:

There was always a good reason why 65~75 mm effective FL prime lenses were unpopular with users and manufacturers alike. They are neither one thing nor the other.

That does not include Pentax primes lineup, I suppose. And of course some of the best FF lenses as Nikon 60/2.8 {recently redesigned}, Tamron 60/2 {why is it f/2?} , and of course Sigma 70/2.8 macro.

What was the reason anyway?

Which part of "... 65~75 mm effective FL prime lenses were unpopular with users and manufacturers alike. They are neither one thing nor the other." was beyond your intellectual reach, Green?

Or is it just your desire to spread even more BS & FUD here on the OSTF?

You have come up with a whole lot of 60 mm lenses.
Where are all the 65~75 mm EFL lenses ... ????????????????

Or have you 'conveniently forgotten' that an f1.8/50 lens for "FF" has the same AoV as a 75 mm on a Nikon 1.5 crop sensor?

Yeah. I thought so. Just more BS and FUD from you to muddy the waters.

With you in those waters, they are already "muddy" enough ... but I can think of other words to describe your presence here.

boggis the catwrote:

Sergey N Greenwrote:

I do not see anything that is "not anywhere near .." in one over the other.

Let's look at the facts, then.

The mZD 45 mm f/1.8 is better in:

• Resolution (maximums of 76 lpmm at f/2.8 vs 46.4 lpmm at f/5.6)

On a densely packed sensor, you might want to read this first,
http://www.lenstip.com/126.1-article-Frequently_asked_questions.html#14

Even at that, there are simply more mm in every dSLR format after Olympus.

• Chromatic aberration

At the level that you would not know A from Z in real shootout.

• Coma and astigmatism

Perhaps ..

• Vignetting (21% vs. 35%)

For a portrait lens, you gotta be kidding me.

• Ghosting and flare (different effects on each lens, though)

No use to mention then.

.. and so on ..

As John pointed out, the 50 mm on APS-C amounts to a 75 mm EFL compared to the 45 mm on FT amounting to a 90 mm EFL. The 90 mm EFL is a more usual choice, and is closer to the 85 mm that appears to be the present "default portrait lens focal length" on 135 systems.

There is no such thing as "default" portrait lens. If you want the whole person standing, use a 50-70mm lens. If persons sit down, a 70-105 mm is a better choice. Even at that, much depends on where you shoot, how much room you have {as from which distance}, etc.. You can use longer lenses if the persons do not extend their feet or arms towards you, or you do not care about the compression.

A better choice on Nikon APS-C might be the AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8G ED Macro at US$560. It is a fair bit slower than the mZD, but seems a good lens overall and certainly better than the cheap 50 mm you suggested.

Ok, I am done with this nonsense.

Bangerwrote:

Sergey N Greenwrote:

It is more expensive than say Nikon 50/1.8, which on Dx (D7000) will give you more photographic freedom than 45/1.8 on FT. Nothing really special in it, really.

Well, the Nikon 50/1.8 is a cheap lens but the performance on DX isn't anywhere near the Olympus m4/3 45mm f1.8, just check the resolution and comments for each of them here:

http://www.lenstip.com/316.1-Lens_review-Olympus_M.Zuiko_Digital_45_mm_f_1.8-Introduction.html

http://www.lenstip.com/219.1-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF_50_mm_f_1.8D-Introduction.html

Rgds, Rob
--
Give a wise man instruction and he is yet wiser !

Olympus E500, E520, E30, 14-45mm, 40-150mm, 11-22mm, 14-54mm, 70-300mm, 25mm 'Pancake' , FL36R

i have and use both, i feel the Nikon is sharper, and the Olympus has better Bokeh, both are great lenses but the Nikkor is a steal for the price.
--
working as intended

stimmerwrote:

Nikon fans are having a very hard time with this.

Not the knowledgeable ones.

Look at the hair in the top right corner of the black patch. On the OMD, it disappears as the ISO's climb. On the other hand, it doesn't on the D7000. Funny that.

Why do you think that is?

And, why don't we compare this 3200 ISO E1 shot I just prepared for Joe Mama to the D7000 shot at 3200 ISO. I guess the E1 must have a better sensor than the D7000 then, eh?

John Kingwrote:

Sergey N Greenwrote:

John Kingwrote:

There was always a good reason why 65~75 mm effective FL prime lenses were unpopular with users and manufacturers alike. They are neither one thing nor the other.

That does not include Pentax primes lineup, I suppose. And of course some of the best FF lenses as Nikon 60/2.8 {recently redesigned}, Tamron 60/2 {why is it f/2?} , and of course Sigma 70/2.8 macro.

What was the reason anyway?

Which part of "... 65~75 mm effective FL prime lenses were unpopular with users and manufacturers alike. They are neither one thing nor the other." was beyond your intellectual reach, Green?

Or is it just your desire to spread even more BS & FUD here on the OSTF?

You have come up with a whole lot of 60 mm lenses.
Where are all the 65~75 mm EFL lenses ... ????????????????

Or have you 'conveniently forgotten' that an f1.8/50 lens for "FF" has the same AoV as a 75 mm on a Nikon 1.5 crop sensor?

Yeah. I thought so. Just more BS and FUD from you to muddy the waters.

With you in those waters, they are already "muddy" enough ... but I can think of other words to describe your presence here.

Forgot to mention Pentax 77/1.8 Limited, highly regarded and sought after lens. How about 75 mm Heliar from Voigtländer, not a right FL in your book? But John, instead of playing to a circus, how about you post the portrait images {just a few}, and show us all how much you know about the subject that is being discussed here - fair deal?

I am not so sure about either having substantial IQ advantage over the other in general use. Spec sheets and measurebation is of no relevance. Even several persons from Nikon I spoke with said that there was no big difference between those two when it comes to IQ, D300/300s being better camera all round. Do you have both and have had chance to use both to make a conclusion or is it based on samples?

olyflyerwrote:

stimmerwrote:

D7000 way overrated. D300s was a much better camera all around.

Yes, but I am pretty sure the D7000 is better interms of IQ if used the right way.

I've seen samples all over and it's up in the league easily, plus it's a lot smaller.

Nikon fans are having a very hard time with this.

Yes, but don't put too much weight on samples unless you know you can trust the source. I think IQ wise the D7000 wins over the D300/D300s.

Sergey N Greenwrote:

John Kingwrote:

Sergey N Greenwrote:

John Kingwrote:

There was always a good reason why 65~75 mm effective FL prime lenses were unpopular with users and manufacturers alike. They are neither one thing nor the other.

That does not include Pentax primes lineup, I suppose. And of course some of the best FF lenses as Nikon 60/2.8 {recently redesigned}, Tamron 60/2 {why is it f/2?} , and of course Sigma 70/2.8 macro.

What was the reason anyway?

Which part of "... 65~75 mm effective FL prime lenses were unpopular with users and manufacturers alike. They are neither one thing nor the other." was beyond your intellectual reach, Green?

Or is it just your desire to spread even more BS & FUD here on the OSTF?

You have come up with a whole lot of 60 mm lenses.
Where are all the 65~75 mm EFL lenses ... ????????????????

Or have you 'conveniently forgotten' that an f1.8/50 lens for "FF" has the same AoV as a 75 mm on a Nikon 1.5 crop sensor?

Yeah. I thought so. Just more BS and FUD from you to muddy the waters.

With you in those waters, they are already "muddy" enough ... but I can think of other words to describe your presence here.

Forgot to mention Pentax 77/1.8 Limited, highly regarded and sought after lens. How about 75 mm Heliar from Voigtländer, not a right FL in your book? But John, instead of playing to a circus, how about you post the portrait images {just a few}, and show us all how much you know about the subject that is being discussed here - fair deal?

What format were those two lenses made for?
I know the Heliar is for the Leica M series 35 mm bodies dating back to 1954 ...

What is the effective FL of the various Pentax lenses on the bodies they were made for.

I don't expect to get any kind of meaningful answer from you, but there is a first time for everything, I suppose ...

You have missed the point being made. Deliberately of course.

AND ... Why would I post any image for the likes of you when you would very predictably trash it, as you and your trolling buddies have in the past, regardless of the image's merits.

As someone wrote to me recently that they could not understand how someone (you) could take the occasional good photograph, yet have such a "black soul". Of course, one could easily argue that you don't have a soul, and therefore there is no essential contradiction; but that is for others to discuss...

I couldn't care less about you, or any opinion that you express.

Out of all the hundreds, if not thousands, of lenses made for "normal" FLs (42~55) for "FF" and 80 mm for 6x6, and all the 85~105 portrait/short telephoto lenses made, you can only manage to dredge up two intermediate FL lenses, without specifying the format for which they were designed - that is to say, what the AoV is for the format they are used on ... Surprise, surprise.

I know of a dozen or so lenses in this category, but that number still pales into insignificance when compared with the number of lenses made that are just above or just below that AoV. As I originally stated, the lenses in that intermediate range were (and are ... ) unpopular with most photographers, so unless they offer something special (e.g. macro), they just didn't and don't sell well. So they are almost never made ...

However, most of us here know that you are only here to start fights and cause dissension, and that you change your "opinion" this way and that to achieve that end.

Why ONLY on the OSTF?
Simple: You are either a lunatic; or you are paid to do it.

Whichever; I have wasted more than sufficient time on you.
I have shown that what you said was nonsensical (as usual) already.
You in return have merely proved that what I stated is correct.

End of discussion, AFAIAC.

Goodnight, Green.
Go and start some fights on the Nikon fora for a change.

Hi Johan!

It is very hard to make any conclusion at this moment since the EM-5 isn't out for sale yet. Following is a bit of advice for your continue reading of the two related forums (Olympus and Micro43 forums) in search of info about EM-5. At the moment you will most often get two general responses. One from the sometimes overly optimistic crowd that hopes that Olympus has finally managed to get the up-to date sensor. Their findings should be taken with the grain of salt. They want to read too much from few images and charts about camera that has not yet been finished.

The second group are persons that have constant need of making negative remarks of anything Olympus makes. They do that eeb in open way, but mostly their preaching s done in more subtle way so they can at will switch focus of discussion when they are proven wrong. They will always destroy the thread with getting out of topic in order to childishly protect their egos. They are self proclaimed experts in different fields. I wonder why none of them hasn't received multiple Nobel prize yet. They believe they are smarter then anyone else and that they are "the choosen ones" who should show us the "simple mortals" what kind of camera we actually need. This group is good to observe and read into only if you need subjects for deeper studies in subject of psychoanalysys.

Technically, if EM-5 can deliver IQ similar or better than latest cameras from Panasonic, in my opinion you should be more than happy with it all factors included (presumed good built quality etc.)? If you are not in a hurry, wait for some serious field tests done with the production version of EM-5 before you spend your money.

Regards
Haris

JohanPwrote:

Hi

It looks like the OM-d is the cam of my dreams... I used to have OM-1, OM-2, OM-10 with several lenses (I still got them just for them being so great to look at & feel)

Now I have the D7000 and is pretty happy with it. But, I don't like the "tunnel" like viewfinder and I want a smaller camera.

What do you think about:
Can I expect the OM-d to deliver as good photo quality as the D7000?
What drawbacks can I expect with the EVF?
How is the Af for moving targets compared to D7000?
I would like to have a faster normal zoom lens - suggestions

Regadrs

JoeNap2wrote:

I may eventually pick up an m43 body to make use of my excellent Oly lenses but there's no way I think the evf on a current day m43 body can handle sports action in a dark gym. I will be using my D7000 for some time to come because it has excellent IQ and noise characteristics for an amateur like me.

...that's not so dark...

Sergey N Greenwrote:

Forgot to mention Pentax 77/1.8 Limited, highly regarded and sought after lens. How about 75 mm Heliar from Voigtländer, not a right FL in your book? But John, instead of playing to a circus, how about you post the portrait images {just a few}, and show us all how much you know about the subject that is being discussed here - fair deal?

You also forgot to mention that your beloved Nikon, who make over 100 lenses offering the most complete lens catalog in the industry, has never felt the urge to make a lens in the 65mm to 75mm range. Not for full frame, and not even for their crop sensor.

And before you bother to look it up.... neither has Canon.

Perhaps they know something that you don't know?

Nikon 20mm f/2.8 AIS Nikkor
Nikon 20mm f/2.8D AF Nikkor s
Nikon 24mm f/1.4G ED AF-S Nikkor
Nikon 24mm f/2.8 AIS Nikkor
Nikon 24mm f/2.8D AF Nikkor
Nikon 24mm f/3.5D ED PC-E Nikkor
Nikon 28mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor
Nikon 28mm f/2.8 AIS Nikkor
Nikon 28mm f/2.8D AF Nikkor
Nikon 35mm f/1.4 AIS Nikkor
Nikon 35mm f/1.4G AF-S Nikkor
Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX Nikkor
Nikon 35mm f/2D AF Nikkor
Nikon 40mm f/2.8G AF-S DX Micro Nikkor
Nikon 45mm f/2.8D ED PC-E Micro Nikkor
Nikon 50mm f/1.2 AIS Nikkor
Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AIS Nikkor
Nikon 50mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor
Nikon 50mm f/1.4G AF-S Nikkor
Nikon 50mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor
Nikon 50mm f/1.8G AF-S Nikkor
Nikon 55mm f/2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor
Nikon 60mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Micro Nikkor

(big gap)

Nikon 85mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor
Nikon 85mm f/1.4G AF-S Nikkor
Nikon 85mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor
Nikon 85mm f/1.8G AF-S Nikkor
Nikon 85mm f/3.5G ED AF-S VR DX Micro
Nikon 105mm f/2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor
Nikon 105mm f/2.8D AF Micro Nikkor
Nikon 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED AF-S VR Micro Nikkor
Nikon 105mm f/2D AF DC Nikkor
Nikon 135mm f/2D AF DC Nikkor