Advice on transition from DSLR to m4/3


guitargeek

New Member
Sep 26, 2010
70
0
0
#1
Hi all. Need some advice on a switch that I am intending to make. I am a current user of a Canon 650D, and the two lenses that I own are Sigma 17-50 f2.8 and Sigma 30 f1.4. I mainly use my DSLR when I am travelling. However, I have recently come to realise that having a DSLR can get rather cumbersome and thus, I am planning to switch to m4/3 system, more specifically, Olympus OM-D E-M10 or E-M5 Mark II.

My questions are:
  1. Will the switch compromise IQ in terms of low light performance?
  2. What are the significant differences between the E-M10 and E-M5 Mark II?
  3. Will either of the two cameras match up to the performance of a 650D?

Thanks for all your inputs.
 

Octarine

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 3, 2008
12,518
32
48
Pasir Ris
#2
websites like www.dpreview.com can give you all the facts and details about each cam, including direct comparison.
See for yourself whether the low light results are fine for you.
 

kandinsky

Moderator
Staff member
Apr 26, 2008
3,014
24
38
#3
My thoughts on Q 1 & 3 (leave Q2 to the Oly users):

1. If comparing with a current gen APS-C sensor/camera, I'd say yes, there may be *some* compromise. But if you're comparing to the 650D, less than you think. On par or even better. As you're comparing current sensor tech to 3 yr-old sensor tech. Like Octarine mentioned, take a look at dpreview's Studio shot comparison tool and see for yourself. They don't have the 650D in their database, I think the 750D was the model right after it, similar specs/sensor as the 650D.


Example: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/ima..._0=normal&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0&y=0

3. Easily, if you get the equivalent lenses to your Sigma 17-50 f2.8 and Sigma 30 f1.4.
Examples: Oly 12-40 f/2.8, and the Oly 25/1.8 or the Panny 25/1.4.
 

Ah Keong

Senior Member
Dec 3, 2014
591
8
18
North
#4
These are the fell from noob me.

1.Will the switch compromise IQ in terms of low light performance?
In theory, yes. you may wanna go dpreview to compare a recent "equivalent" of a 650D vs OM-D E-M10 or E-M5 Mark II.

2.What are the significant differences between the E-M10 and E-M5 Mark II?
Noob me feel that E-M10 offer more value for money unless there is a "E-M10 Mark II"
For $898.00, you get a E-M10 14-42mm kit with
a) 16MP sensor
b) 3 axis IBIS (In-Body-Image-Stabilisation)
c) Tilt screen
d) 1/4000 shutter

For $1998.00 you get a E-M5 Mark II 14-150mm kit with
a) 16MP sensnor
b) 5 axis IBIS
c) articulate screen (like EOS 70D?)
d) 1/6000 shutter (think is electronic)
e) 40MP (on tripod for stationary shooting)
f) weather proofing (like EOS 7D?)

that's the difference you get for $1000++ more

https://www.shopatolympus.com.sg/index.php/om-d.html

3.Will either of the two cameras match up to the performance of a 650D?
to match Sigma 17-50 f2.8 and Sigma 30 f1.4, don think there is a equivalent of M.Zukio 8.5-25mm f1.4 and 15mm f0.7 but there is M.Zuiko 12-40mm f2.8 and 17mm f1.8

https://www.shopatolympus.com.sg/index.php/lenses/pro-lens.html
 

Last edited:

dennisc

Senior Member
Oct 24, 2002
2,028
2
38
Freezing Upp Thomson/Mandai!
#5
I don't know about facts, but from my personal experience with those 2 Olympus far exceeds my expectation compared to my Canon 7d & 5d. Maybe it's just me but I find the Olympus focus better in low light, definitely much better than the 650D (which I have tried on a dark stage, kept hunting and hunting) and lenses are way cheaper. Photo quality and dynamics is better too.
Example just a Rough Snapshot test using Olym and Kit the focusing was immediate on 200mm very low light. Not trying to sell anything just my 1cent.
 

Last edited:

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,660
68
48
lil red dot
#6
E-M1 ISO performance is already on par with the fullframe Nikon D3. That is a big hint on how well these two new cameras will perform compared to 650D.

I am sure both cameras will exceed the performance of the 650D by quite a bit.
 

tecnica

Senior Member
Dec 26, 2004
3,660
10
0
#7
I am using the EM-5 now and I actually prefer the files from it than from my then-7D.

Speaking from *my own experience*, I can say that the EM-5 has better dynamic range than the 7D and the Oly files are much easier to process.
 

Edwin Francis

Senior Member
Mar 24, 2006
883
3
18
www.sgwriter.com
#8
3.Will either of the two cameras match up to the performance of a 650D?
to match Sigma 17-50 f2.8 and Sigma 30 f1.4, don think there is a equivalent of M.Zukio 8.5-25mm f1.4 and 15mm f0.7 but there is M.Zuiko 12-40mm f2.8 and 17mm f1.8[/url]
You're comparing APS-C, not FF, with m43. Divide by 1.25, not 2.
The 12-40 (m43) IS roughly equivalent to the 17-50 (APS-C)
For the 30mm (APS-C), the equivalent is 25mm, and there are some great m43 primes - Pana Leica 25/1.4 or the less expensive Oly 25/1.8.
As for aperture, f1.4 is f1.4, no matter the format. The light gathering power is the same, ie. all other things being equal, they give you the same exposure.
The DOF is greater for m43, so if you want to blur backgrounds with selective focus, you need abt 1 stop bigger aperture for m43 than APS-C (2 stops compared to FF). There is a Voigtlander 25/0.95, but it ain't cheap. If that's important to you, you might want to go up to FF instead. But if size and weight is impt, m43 is fantastic.

The 650D is a good entry-level camera. The EM5 is more like the 7D - semi-pro, tougher, and with better direct control (2 dials and lots of customisable buttons). So performance-wise, you'll probably find the Oly's faster in almost all situations. That goes for the EM10 too.

Image Quality? Not much in it, even at high ISOs. Since the EM5 (1st one), m43 is abt on par with APS-C. That said, the image processing engines are different, so if you're shooting JPEGs, there is a different look. Subjective. I am happy with both, but prefer the Oly.

You might find the Oly menu system a bit convoluted (I do, buy maybe I'm just getting used to it. I'm more used to Canon's too). But compared to the 650D, the Oly's offer more customisability. After all, the 7D menu is also more complex than the one on the 650D.

All in all, I think you'll be very happy with the move. Just bear in mind that no system is perfect. You will probably need some time to learn the ins & outs, and make the most of it.
 

Last edited:

Ah Keong

Senior Member
Dec 3, 2014
591
8
18
North
#9
You're comparing APS-C, not FF, with m43. Divide by 1.25, not 2.
The 12-40 (m43) IS roughly equivalent to the 17-50 (APS-C)
For the 30mm (APS-C), the equivalent is 25mm, and there are some great m43 primes - Pana Leica 25/1.4 or the less expensive Oly 25/1.8.
Opps sorry for the error. Noob me thought the Sigma lens mentioned is FF lens. My bad. ;p
17-50mm F2.8 "equivalent" = "13-40mm F2.2"
30mm F1.4 "equivalent" = "24mm F1.1"

Noob me agree with Edwin Francis's recommendations of:
Sigma 30mm F1.4 -> Panasonic Leica 25mm F1.4 or the Olympus M.Zuiko 25mm F1.8.
If budget is no issue -> Voigtlander 25mm F0.95
 

Last edited:

Octarine

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 3, 2008
12,518
32
48
Pasir Ris
#10
Opps sorry for the error. Noob me thought the Sigma lens mentioned is FF lens. My bad. ;p
Not relevant. What matters is the sensor size in relation to 24x36mm (FF size).
 

Oct 12, 2004
457
5
18
#11
Hi Guitargeek,
Are you planning to do a complete switch over or run two systems concurrently.
IMO there are advantages of each but the difference will be less when comparing APS-C based DSLRs (as oppose to FF) vs m43.
To answer you questions:
1. Yes. But in practice does it really affect you? How low is low? If you're regularly shooting above ISO 6400 in artificial light then it may affect you more so but if you're mostly shooting from base to 3200 then I think you're not likely too see a big difference. Remember that APS-C, particularly Canon's variant @1.6X crop is actually not that much bigger (area wise) than m43 especially once you factor in the aspect ratio (3:2 vs 4:3). Furthermore, the current Sony variant sensors tend to have better shadow noise although I'm not familiar with the Canon 650D exactly so I can't comment directly.
Lastly, if you're largely a jpeg shooter then in-camera processing, particularly how the camera handles noise reduction is going to be a bigger determinant of perceived low light performance. If you shoot RAW, then what I've said above will be more relevant.

2. Someone will be able to give you a table of differences. But to me, the most significant ones are:
- Build quality: the 5 MkII is weather proof and generally seems more solid.
- IBIS: the 5 mkII one is crazy good, much better than the 5 mk1, which was already better then the 10.
- Flash: the 10 has a pop-up which is convenient, but the 5 MkII's external flash tilts and swivels. I mostly dislike direct flash so the tilt and swivel are very welcomed but it's not very powerful though.
- EVF: The 10 mkII should be better with more resolution although I haven't compared it side by side.

3. Hard question to answer. Match up in what area? It will exceed the 650D capabilities in some area but loose in others. Again it will largely depend on your use and regular shooting condition. For general photography I doubt you'll notice much of a difference. Personal preferences and individual circumstance like the size of your hands, how comfortable the camera feels in your hand, your button layout preference, menu layout preference etc. will probably be a bigger influence on your satisfaction level.
 

guitargeek

New Member
Sep 26, 2010
70
0
0
#12
Hi swifty, to answer your question, yes I am doing a complete switch over. Initially bought the DSLR to start out as a hobby but now with the m43 system out and seeing its development, I think it is more suited for me. I just don't see myself upgrading to a better DSLR body when I am already bemoaning the weight of a 650D.

1. I usually don't go beyond 6400 on my 650D as it gets grainy. Usually shoot JPEG but I'll do a little PP afterwards.

2. I am actually leaning towards the E-M10 due to budget constraints. Hoping to sell everything and break even. The EM5 MkII is way beyond my budget and I've read that the EM10 IBIS is not that different from the original EM5. So it's a matter between a 2nd hand EM5 or 1st hand EM10. Went to PC show today and EM10 is selling at $898 with 12-42 kit lens and additional 45mm f1.8. Probably should try a different prime hmmm.

3. I do a lot of street photography when I'm travelling overseas so I like bokeh. As for landscape, I usually make-do with my 17-50 but of course, I don't get great images.

As for the other contributors, thank you so much for your replies. For lenses, I think the Olympus 12-40 f2.8 will replace my 17-50 and probably the Panasonic 20 1.7 to replace my 35mm? Now to decide on the body. Not sure if the EM10 3-point IBIS will be able to counter my shaky hands (which is bad to the extent that I have had people asking me why my hands are shaking for no reason).

Hi Guitargeek,
Are you planning to do a complete switch over or run two systems concurrently.
IMO there are advantages of each but the difference will be less when comparing APS-C based DSLRs (as oppose to FF) vs m43.
To answer you questions:
1. Yes. But in practice does it really affect you? How low is low? If you're regularly shooting above ISO 6400 in artificial light then it may affect you more so but if you're mostly shooting from base to 3200 then I think you're not likely too see a big difference. Remember that APS-C, particularly Canon's variant @1.6X crop is actually not that much bigger (area wise) than m43 especially once you factor in the aspect ratio (3:2 vs 4:3). Furthermore, the current Sony variant sensors tend to have better shadow noise although I'm not familiar with the Canon 650D exactly so I can't comment directly.
Lastly, if you're largely a jpeg shooter then in-camera processing, particularly how the camera handles noise reduction is going to be a bigger determinant of perceived low light performance. If you shoot RAW, then what I've said above will be more relevant.

2. Someone will be able to give you a table of differences. But to me, the most significant ones are:
- Build quality: the 5 MkII is weather proof and generally seems more solid.
- IBIS: the 5 mkII one is crazy good, much better than the 5 mk1, which was already better then the 10.
- Flash: the 10 has a pop-up which is convenient, but the 5 MkII's external flash tilts and swivels. I mostly dislike direct flash so the tilt and swivel are very welcomed but it's not very powerful though.
- EVF: The 10 mkII should be better with more resolution although I haven't compared it side by side.

3. Hard question to answer. Match up in what area? It will exceed the 650D capabilities in some area but loose in others. Again it will largely depend on your use and regular shooting condition. For general photography I doubt you'll notice much of a difference. Personal preferences and individual circumstance like the size of your hands, how comfortable the camera feels in your hand, your button layout preference, menu layout preference etc. will probably be a bigger influence on your satisfaction level.
 

Last edited:

iluvs90

Senior Member
Apr 11, 2010
887
11
18
Singapore
#13
As for the other contributors, thank you so much for your replies. For lenses, I think the Olympus 12-40 f2.8 will replace my 17-50 and probably the Panasonic 20 1.7 to replace my 35mm? Now to decide on the body. Not sure if the EM10 3-point IBIS will be able to counter my shaky hands (which is bad to the extent that I have had people asking me why my hands are shaking for no reason).
The 12-40 FOV would cover more than your current 17-50 so you should be good on this one while your 30mm or 35mm is more equitable to a m43 25mm FOV. But the Panasonic 20mm is still a great start. Other brands like Sigma also produces ART lenses for m43 namely 19, 30, and 60mm, all f2.8.

My personal thought is that m43 low light high ISO performance is getting very close to APSC sensor at 3200 and 6400 so if one can save some weight will be added bonus.

Just one other thing to consider EM5 over EM10 is the weather sealing when paired with the 12-40.
 

guitargeek

New Member
Sep 26, 2010
70
0
0
#14
Not sure if weather sealing is necessary. My 650D has been under a few drizzles but is still working fine.
 

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,660
68
48
lil red dot
#15
Not sure if weather sealing is necessary. My 650D has been under a few drizzles but is still working fine.
Only you can decide if you need it. Weather sealing is not just for drizzles, but also for water splashes, heavy rain etc....
 

DSolZ

New Member
Mar 6, 2010
784
7
0
#16
Not sure if weather sealing is necessary. My 650D has been under a few drizzles but is still working fine.
If you are not going to be too rough on your equipment...... You should be fine without it.
Go get a em10 pr em5m2 this weekend and shoot away
 

Oct 12, 2004
457
5
18
#17
Just wondering if you've considered a Canon SL1 if weight is your only issue? Of course there are other advantages to mirrorless but purely for weight, the lightest DSLRs aren't all that different.
Anyways, I'll assume you've decided to go mirrorless.

1. My personal opinion is that there's been little improvement since the original E-M5 in terms of RAW output but it's already quite good. Now jpegs could be quite different but that's not a parameter I personally test or use. Also consider the display that your pictures will end up. Forget 100% on screen but noise is less intrusive on most high-ish pixel density modern monitors and in print. If the screen is smaller like a tablet or phone, then the noise is even less perceivable. For those reasons I doubt you'd have a big issue with ISO 3200-6400 on m43 as compared to APS-C. If you pixel peep and in RAW, its there but since you mostly shoot jpeg, a bit of NR either in camera or post shouldn't bother you too much.

2. You're right in that the E-M10's IBIS looses only a little to the E-M5. But the E-M1 improved on the E-M5 and the E-M5 Mk II's even better still. So there will be quite a difference from the E-M10 to the E-M5 Mk II. But I understands budget considerations might keep the Mk II off your radar.
Its a pity there aren't run out sales on the E-M5 with 12-40 Pro kit. In Oz, its about $1100 dropping to below $1000 at one point. Given you used to have a 17-50/2.8 that you're trying to replace I'd strongly suggest the 12-40/2.8 but I'm not sure which models have them in a kit.

3. By bokeh I assume you're referring to shallow DOF rather than bokeh quality? If yes, then unfortunately m43 is probably not the best format to achieve this. Not saying it can't, just that you need fast lenses that are either longer in focal length (and can get a bit pricey) or you need to get pretty close to your subject. But the good news is that APS-C's only a little better. With your 30/1.4 Sigma, you'd get pretty close on m43 with a 25mm f1.4. The Panasonic 20mm f1.7 won't be too far off either.
If Olympus follows through with some rumours of f1.0 lenses then you're in bokeheaven (but probably at a much dearer price though).
No reasons why the 17-50 can't do good landscapes just like there's no reason the 12-40 can't either. Or do you mean you don't think it's wide enough to produce that vista like perspective.
For street and landscapes I doubt you loose much to APS-C. If anything the more discreet nature of mirrorless cameras can be an advantage. AF wise, you'd probably use zone focusing or single snaps where m43 does fine. The contrast based AF is actually a bit more advantageous for accuracy but your subject does need a little more contrast. Contrast based AF tend to hunt more in low light I've found in my own experience.
 

Sep 26, 2010
70
0
0
#18
Thank you for all your help! I am now a proud owner of an Olympus E-M10 with the 12-42 kit lens.

Regarding lenses, I think 12-40 is way beyond my budget so I'd be sticking with the 12-42 for now. However, I will be in Europe for the later half of the year and will probably be doing lots of travelling. Thinking of purchasing an UWA. As of now, it'll either be the Samyang 7.5mm Fisheye or the Olympus 9-18mm. Any other recommendations?

Will probably be postponing the purchase of the Panasonic 20mm f1.7/Olympus 25mm f1.8 to get a UWA since the 12-42 got that focal length covered.
 

wonglp

Moderator
Staff member
Jul 20, 2007
6,816
74
48
Bukit Batok
#19
Thank you for all your help! I am now a proud owner of an Olympus E-M10 with the 12-42 kit lens.

Regarding lenses, I think 12-40 is way beyond my budget so I'd be sticking with the 12-42 for now. However, I will be in Europe for the later half of the year and will probably be doing lots of travelling. Thinking of purchasing an UWA. As of now, it'll either be the Samyang 7.5mm Fisheye or the Olympus 9-18mm. Any other recommendations?

Will probably be postponing the purchase of the Panasonic 20mm f1.7/Olympus 25mm f1.8 to get a UWA since the 12-42 got that focal length covered.
Congrats on new purchase. Perhaps there's a typo on kit lens which is 14-42.
9-18 and samyang fisheye produces different images. I would personally go for 9-18 as I prefer rectilinear lens. Some might opt to defish with a fisheye but I'm not too sure the corners would be that good still after defishing. Or if your budget can stretch a little can look out for used Panasonic 7-14/4 there might be some who will sell it for soon to launch Oly 7-14/2.8 . Cheers
 

iluvs90

Senior Member
Apr 11, 2010
887
11
18
Singapore
#20
Thank you for all your help! I am now a proud owner of an Olympus E-M10 with the 12-42 kit lens.

Regarding lenses, I think 12-40 is way beyond my budget so I'd be sticking with the 12-42 for now. However, I will be in Europe for the later half of the year and will probably be doing lots of travelling. Thinking of purchasing an UWA. As of now, it'll either be the Samyang 7.5mm Fisheye or the Olympus 9-18mm. Any other recommendations?

Will probably be postponing the purchase of the Panasonic 20mm f1.7/Olympus 25mm f1.8 to get a UWA since the 12-42 got that focal length covered.
Congrats as well bro. Happy shooting. Another option for UWA is actually available which is the Olympus WA converter.
http://asia.olympus-imaging.com/product/dslr/mlens/wconp01/index.html

It is a direct screw fit to your kit lens 14-42 bringing the wide end to 11mm so in 35mm equiv it is 22mm instead of 28mm. Not bad for tight spot and still wanna soak in more things.
 

Top Bottom