# OM-D E-M5 II, smaller MFT sensor still outperforming 70D



## Aglet (Mar 25, 2015)

Well, I don't know if it's really outperforming it by all THAT much, maybe not even a full stop if the iso sensitivities are real. Probably still has an edge over the 7D2 as well.

www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m5-ii/12

OTOH, if you select the Nikon d5500 you can push that little beast +6EV and have it comparable to the EM52 and 70D pushed only 3 EV. That's some kinda clean.

Golly, Canon, what'r'ya gonna do 'bout dat?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 25, 2015)

Aglet said:


> Golly, Canon, what'r'ya gonna do 'bout dat?



Keep on sellin' the 70D, of course. Golly gee, I bet it even continues to sell far better than any Oly MILC.


----------



## candc (Mar 25, 2015)

There seems to be an obsession with how much you can boost the shadows on some of these websites. I just don't understand why you would want to? When you go overboard to that degree it just looks unnatural. They show this image as a "real world example".

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m5-ii/samples/Raw_Latitude/Real_world_16MP.jpg

It looks like crap to me.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 25, 2015)

candc said:


> There seems to be an obsession with how much you can boost the shadows on some of these websites. I just don't understand why you would want to? When you go overboard to that degree it just looks unnatural. They show this image as a "real world example".
> 
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m5-ii/samples/Raw_Latitude/Real_world_16MP.jpg
> 
> It looks like crap to me.



Stop talking sh!t candc.

Obviously Canon are ******* and Olympus will fly from the mountain top to vanquish all before her with IQ like this. /sarcasm

It is funny, if anybody posted a picture of a Canon file that looked like that they would call us all delusional fanboys who refuse to accept that Canon's days are numbered.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 25, 2015)

candc said:


> "real world example"



Great example of how to take a poorly composed, distorted, flat and boring image and make the lighting equally flat and boring...in the real world.


----------



## Aglet (Mar 25, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > There seems to be an obsession with how much you can boost the shadows on some of these websites. I just don't understand why you would want to? When you go overboard to that degree it just looks unnatural. They show this image as a "real world example".
> ...



That's a fairly bad example of real world use. Very noisy, horizontal banding evident in some areas. Even if you NR the heck out of it and add lots of local contrast & color enhancements it'd still be quite limited in printable size.

I guess it _could_ be a real world example .. if you didn't have a better camera. 
Would the 70D be a better camera in those shooting conditions?... I doubt it.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 25, 2015)

Aglet said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > candc said:
> ...



I doubt it too. But where we differ is when you take other sensors that don't have as much noise when lifted you consider the shadows that have no colour or tonality to be good enough, I don't, to me grey mush is grey mush, it is useless even if it doesn't have noise and banding.


----------



## pwp (Mar 25, 2015)

I've been taking my preferred video camera (Panasonic GH4) out on stills shoots where I may benefit having a lightweight third body. Its MFT sensor obviously doesn't even come close to my 5DIII or 1D MkIV files, but I have to say I have been staggered by what it can punch out. I have no hesitation delivering carefully processed GH4 files to clients. 

Even as MFT sensors improve, the same technology gains will benefit all formats from MFT (and smaller), to APS-C, to FF and on to MF. This is such a great time to be a photographer.

-pw


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 25, 2015)

pwp said:


> I've been taking my preferred video camera (Panasonic GH4) out on stills shoots where I may benefit having a lightweight third body. Its MFT sensor obviously doesn't even come close to my 5DIII or 1D MkIV files, but I have to say I have been staggered by what it can punch out. I have no hesitation delivering carefully processed GH4 files to clients.
> 
> Even as MFT sensors improve, the same technology gains will benefit all formats from MFT (and smaller), to APS-C, to FF and on to MF. This is such a great time to be a photographer.
> 
> -pw


Absolutely agree, I can't believe anybody has cause to moan about anything, this is a golden age, we will not have this kind of choice of quality for long, there has to be industry rationalization at some point.

My EOS-M, that was severely criticized by virtually everybody on release is the best small camera I have ever owned, by a long way, and I too am quite happy to deliver images to clients from it, either as scene setting remote images or just as a general backup.


----------



## Aglet (Mar 28, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > Golly, Canon, what'r'ya gonna do 'bout dat?
> ...



As you state, Canon will probably do nothing about that and still rake it in.


----------



## Aglet (Mar 28, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> pwp said:
> 
> 
> > I've been taking my preferred video camera (Panasonic GH4) out on stills shoots where I may benefit having a lightweight third body. Its MFT sensor obviously doesn't even come close to my 5DIII or 1D MkIV files, but I have to say I have been staggered by what it can punch out. I have no hesitation delivering carefully processed GH4 files to clients.
> ...



yep, even my little Pentax Q bodies can produce some pretty useable files. LOTS of good options out there today, tho some are still better/different than others.

FWIW, this just in...

www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Nikon-D5500-sensor-review-Low-noise-and-class-leading-dynamic-range

the new little Nik spanks the (older but it doesn't seem to matter) 70D from base all the way to 12,800 iso, and it doesn't lose anything there either. AND it has better color response.

I'll take those clean shadows and their _lack of tonality_(?) over what Canon can provide in that part of the chart ANY day. It sure makes my life simpler in post and that more than makes up for any slight handling advantage Canon bodies may have while taking the shot.
E.g. I _like_ using my 60D with 15-85mm for lots of things. But I've been able to compare 36x24" prints I made with it at base ISO in good light vs a lowly D5100 running a bit higher ISO in poorer lighting conditions and the difference is noticeably in the Nikon's favor at that size, even with a 2MP disadvantage against the Nik. It's not an obvious difference, but it's there, even after all the work in post and reworking with DxO. And that's the biggest difference, it took a lot less time to prep the Nikon file to look its best than it did the Canon file.
I've found similar advantages with the MFT files I'd processed as well; they don't require much work.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 28, 2015)

Get whatever tools you need to take the images you want when working the way you like. I have been able to earn a reasonable living working with inferior Canon sensors and their '_unusable noise and banding_' for quite a while, others need something different for their work or style of shooting, nobody cares.

As for printing 24" x 36" prints from a crop camera, we just have different ideas about printing too


----------



## deleteme (Mar 28, 2015)

Aglet said:


> But I've been able to compare 36x24" prints I made with it at base ISO in good light vs a lowly D5100 running a bit higher ISO in poorer lighting conditions and the difference is noticeably in the Nikon's favor at that size, even with a 2MP disadvantage against the Nik. It's not an obvious difference, but it's there, even after all the work in post and reworking with DxO. And that's the biggest difference, it took a lot less time to prep the Nikon file to look its best than it did the Canon file.
> I've found similar advantages with the MFT files I'd processed as well; they don't require much work.



Maybe you don't know how to set up your workflow and are getting lucky with Nikon defaults.


----------



## Aglet (Mar 29, 2015)

Normalnorm said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > But I've been able to compare 36x24" prints I made with it at base ISO in good light vs a lowly D5100 running a bit higher ISO in poorer lighting conditions and the difference is noticeably in the Nikon's favor at that size, even with a 2MP disadvantage against the Nik. It's not an obvious difference, but it's there, even after all the work in post and reworking with DxO. And that's the biggest difference, it took a lot less time to prep the Nikon file to look its best than it did the Canon file.
> ...



maybe I know that using certain tools can mean there's less work required to get to the desired result.


----------



## ritholtz (Mar 29, 2015)

Aglet said:


> Well, I don't know if it's really outperforming it by all THAT much, maybe not even a full stop if the iso sensitivities are real. Probably still has an edge over the 7D2 as well.
> 
> www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m5-ii/12
> 
> ...


70D does fine until +3EV push. It is little sharper and noisy.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr144_0=canon_eos70d&attr144_1=nikon_d5500&attr144_2=canon_eos70d&attr144_3=nikon_d5500&attr146_0=100_0&attr146_1=100_0&attr146_2=100_3&attr146_3=100_3&normalization=full&widget=205&x=1.043026986223816&y=0.9960443562585123

Every one pushed to +3EV. Even Nikon is missing fine details. Actually Canon shows some details albeit noisy.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr144_0=canon_eos70d&attr144_1=oly_em5ii&attr144_2=canon_eos70d&attr144_3=nikon_d5500&attr146_0=100_0&attr146_1=200_3&attr146_2=100_3&attr146_3=100_3&normalization=full&widget=205&x=0.7455469569042883&y=0.5657405743993502

Now, EM52 and Nikon pushed to +5EV and 70D to +3EV. Can some recognize what is EM52 actually captured. What is the point? 
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr144_0=canon_eos70d&attr144_1=oly_em5ii&attr144_2=canon_eos70d&attr144_3=nikon_d5500&attr146_0=100_0&attr146_1=200_5&attr146_2=100_3&attr146_3=100_5&normalization=full&widget=205&x=0.7455469569042883&y=0.5657405743993502


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 29, 2015)

ritholtz said:


> What is the point?



Unknown


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 29, 2015)

Aglet said:


> Golly, Canon, what'r'ya gonna do 'bout dat?



Canon is going on making a lot of money.

It's no secret the 70d crop sensor is just a very moderate bump up from the old 18mp design, so it's not exactly difficult to best that. And it's well-known Nikon has the edge on low iso. Canon has shown what they can do even with the current sensor tech in the 7d2, the 70d is just a legacy product - though a fine camera of course in absolute terms.

But: With people buying a 70d, how many will really notice? How many are doing heavy shadow pushing in post (if they're doing post at all)? I'd be worried about other things with the 70d like the spot af being crippled on 7d->70d or that 19 af points with the 7d's precision aren't exactly competitive anymore today.


----------



## zlatko (Mar 29, 2015)

Aglet said:


> Golly, Canon, what'r'ya gonna do 'bout dat?



The 70D is a fine camera, so Canon should do absolutely nothing. In the world of real photography, almost no one cares about this pushing 6EV nonsense. That's not how we make photos, and there are much more important things to consider.


----------



## zlatko (Mar 29, 2015)

candc said:


> There seems to be an obsession with how much you can boost the shadows on some of these websites. I just don't understand why you would want to? When you go overboard to that degree it just looks unnatural. They show this image as a "real world example".
> 
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m5-ii/samples/Raw_Latitude/Real_world_16MP.jpg
> 
> It looks like crap to me.



It is an obsession and it is nonsense. Thankfully, Canon doesn't make cameras for nonsense.


----------



## ritholtz (Mar 29, 2015)

Aglet said:


> yep, even my little Pentax Q bodies can produce some pretty useable files. LOTS of good options out there today, tho some are still better/different than others.
> 
> FWIW, this just in...
> 
> ...


All Nikon/Sony cameras wins this Dxo competition with handsome margin. Even Canon FF cameras come short when compared to these brands crop cameras. Real world comparison reviews throw up some surprising results.
Canon 70d comes very close to matching Nikon d7100 image. But Nikon best crop camera can not match with even 70d when it comes to performance (fps,bufer,focus) and features (duel-pixel, wifi). 70D is a good trade off for people who wants all round camera (stills/video/features) with nice lens to compliment its features using cheap and good STM lens which covers from 10- 250mm (equivalent to 16 - 400mm) for silent focus. All these STM lens improves image,focus and build quality. They are even internal focusing. There is a lot of value in Camera crop system. Canon throws lot of features for crop users except high DR at low ISO which is the same thing with their FF offerings. If this DR is not a issue for all the professionals using Canon FF gear, not sure if it is going to be a issue with 70D target users.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOM4r1gxsbs


----------



## Aglet (Mar 30, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> As for printing 24" x 36" prints from a crop camera, we just have different ideas about printing too



we must  .. a matte 24x36" is not a big stretch for a 16MP bayer if well processed.

I've got 8 crop-body shots printed that size going up for public display and they all look mighty good.
4 from various Canons (40/60/7D), 4 from a d5100.
They don't suffer any in comparison right next to shots done with a 5D2 at that size.
The only shots that do stand out a bit are the ones from the d800/e. They're bigger and sharper. The one that looks the worst, IQ-wise, is from the 7D (overcast afternoon shot at 400mm). The 7D's shot has been highly abstracted so the noise, altho a problem, was massaged to suit the image.
40D's in 2nd last place for IQ but not much sharpness to be had in a snowstorm scene.


----------



## JoFT (Apr 15, 2015)

It is very hard to compare these cameras. But I agree: the difference between µ43 and APS-C is pretty close... I like the format of µ43 and the great lenses which you can get...


I made a more detailed hands on comparison.... Due to my taste there are limitations in µ43. The images especially in low light are not as clear as from FF, but in APS-C it comes much closer.....



http://delightphoto.zenfolio.com/blog/2015/1/full-frame---aps-c---43-which-format-to-choose (or if there is still and autochange from the admins on this page....


http://bit.ly/1yIg63r


What di you think about this...


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 15, 2015)

Aglet said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > As for printing 24" x 36" prints from a crop camera, we just have different ideas about printing too
> ...



It can be done, heck you can make billboards from them, we just have different ideas on what quality printing is. I don't like taking 135 format over 20"x30" printed area as I think the quality drop off over that for most subjects and shooting/lighting situations is quite high. I have printed a portrait I took with 21MP 135 at 46"x31" printed area, that I extrapolated to 240ppi, that looked very good even close up, but that was with controlled lighting great contrast and the 100mm L Macro at f7.1.

I am a crisp detail kind of person and hate the smoothness oversized printing brings to the detail. I'd far rather a crisp 20"x30" print than an inevitably lower quality 24"x36", with regards prints people absolutely do not honour 'accepted' viewing distances!


----------



## Aglet (Apr 16, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I also like a very crisp image and that's why I'm pleasantly surprised that my secret PP sauce (OK, that sounds funny but I'm leaving it as-is) managed to take a 16MP image from an AA-filter-equipped camera, Nikon, mind you, so much less noise to deal with, and, despite the used of a less than fabulous superzoom lens, in moderate light, handheld, above base ISO, produced an image that size that looks GOOD. (I'm out of commas) The find detail available is much better than I expected at this size and the image has a surprising lot of "depth" with a nearly 3D look to it. These images are forest-scapes and there's a lot of fine detail, right down to the texture of mosses, tiny weeds, and little piles of pebbles along a stream.

and 24x36 impresses potential customers more than 20x30, especially if they have to put their glasses on to get a closer look at either.  If this was on a fine textured semi or gloss paper, then the results might be a bit different but they look great with the surface texture I'm using.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 16, 2015)

Yes, as I keep saying, we have very different ideas on what quality printing is.


----------

