Cant decide E-M5 or "new" outdated 7D

any clues, weight vs image quality vs longevity?

Chalk and cheese these cameras aren't they? What sort of photography do you do?

Here is a nice review that will help with the specs on the Olympus.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/omd​-em5/omd-em5A.HTM

What draws you to these 2 already?

Personally, I am a huge Canon fan. Much of that is based on an early lead of AF Technology years ago; in the film days, and the depth and breadth of their EF lineup. Nikon has plenty to offer too, but I doubt I'd ever consider any other systems. Olympus does have an interesting history and is making strides to be a worthy contender for the consumer.

Is the 7D outdated?
Mine still works and works great.

Susan what do you currently own?

If your a casual shooter with no serious events to cover (paid) and do NOT need to document fast action the EM-5 is a great camera.

The OM-d's AF is fast focusing when it comes to selecting the AF points on the back of the lcd. If your trying to lock and track a sprinting child or running dog the contrast AF is pig slow and very likely have horrible keeper rate.

EM-5 Image quality is without a doubt better than the 7d. The ISO performance is superior to the 7d. Also the noise in the EM-5 is alot easier to clean up in post. The EM-5's ISO 3200 is extremely impressive compared to canon's current top 1.6 crop bodies.

The 7D is a camera that will provide very good files and capture fast action since dslr's are phase detect. The quick AF will be great for locking on to virtually any scenario.

I was once a "little camera" snob and thought they were sub par. I know there are alot of dslr people with similar views on "whatever" little camera attitudes. I can use the OM-D with full confidence using available light and get incredible results. I would take my Micro 4/3 file from my OM-D over my previous 50d, 1dmk3 anyday. A friend of mine that works at a camera shop agrees that the OM-d easily has better IQ than the canon 7D.

For casual walks to street photography the small light weight camera is less noticeable compared to a dslr.

Between the two I would choose the 7D if I had to document paid events due to the more reliable AF. For less serious events for personal use the EM-5 fits in a coat pocket with a 14mm f/2.5 lens. I seldom touch my 5dc since I bought my OM-D.

i'd go with the 7d, i believe its more versatile.

7d isn't outdated. it was ahead of it's time. it's just now starting to get surpassed buy the "rumors" of new bodies.

If a new 7D mark2 has the IQ of the OM-D I would buy it in a split second. The image quality I anticipated when the 7D was introduced years back I wished it was a big leap from the 50D.

Reno is correct about the 7d being more versatile.

The thing about the M43 system is that "wyswyg" (what you see is what you get) in the lcd or view finder. So in other words virtually all of your photos have perfect exposure since you tweak the settings as your in the situation. I dont shoot JPG but realistically for a lazy day I could print the photos straight out of camera.

As a loyal Canon user its hard to believe I'd rave about a little olympus camera. The enjoyment of photography has increased after I bought the Olympus. I seldom ever shoot sports or anything fast moving so I get incredible photos with the OM-D. Using the ultra light weight combo I surpass the IQ of canon's top 1.6 crop bodies.

I'm slowly buying lenses for the m43. Its become very expensive supporting two different camera systems. However both have different uses. Alot of my close friends are shocked how I lug this small camera now but they dont see a huge difference in the image quality.

From the images i've seen I am fully convinced an OM-D combo with a panasonic 12-35 f/2.8 (24-70 equiv full frame format) would far exceed IQ compared the 60d/7D combo with canon 17-55IS or tammy 17-50 VC.

No way would I have ever believed an M43 would be equiv to a dslrl body.

On the other side of the coin......if your intention is to get very serious in photography and seeking the opportunities in becoming professional I'd settle for the 7D and start buying lenses. Down the road you can always purchase a newer body that will provide better IQ.

Since theres no mention of application of the camera my assumption is "casual use". The OM-D is not an action camera but a great tool to document family/life events. Many canon users that have never played with an OM-D have no idea that it surpasses IQ of all of their 1.6 crop camera's at this moment in time.

AlanU wrote in post #14732924
EM-5 Image quality is without a doubt better than the 7d. The ISO performance is superior to the 7d. Also the noise in the EM-5 is alot easier to clean up in post. The EM-5's ISO 3200 is extremely impressive compared to canon's current top 1.6 crop bodies....

I was once a "little camera" snob and thought they were sub par. I know there are alot of dslr people with similar views on "whatever" little camera attitudes. I can use the OM-D with full confidence using available light and get incredible results. I would take my Micro 4/3 file from my OM-D over my previous 50d, 1dmk3 anyday. A friend of mine that works at a camera shop agrees that the OM-d easily has better IQ than the canon 7D. ...

Between the two I would choose the 7D if I had to document paid events due to the more reliable AF. For less serious events for personal use the EM-5 fits in a coat pocket with a 14mm f/2.5 lens. I seldom touch my 5dc since I bought my OM-D.

As a long time user of Olympus OM series cameras, starting with ownership of the original OM-1 (later getting the OM-1MD), I have loved the compactness yet full capabilities compared to the more beastly sized cameras. I still have the OM-1MD as well as an OM-4. I really wish that a digital back were engineered to fit OM-n bodies, since they have removeable film backs and could easily accomodate such a conversion (with the digital electronics below the main body, like a battery grip). Compared to the OM, my Canon (my first Canon body shown) is a monster.

I think that last comparison just shows how much better the JPG engine is in the Olympus vs the 7D, unless I am missing something. My ISO 6400 images look MUCH better on any of the 3-4 7Ds I have owned than what I see there.

Here is a most recent 7D ISO 6400, completely untouched after the raw conversion. I am not saying that the Olympus wouldn't do better, but just that the 7D samples from that site seem to conflict with my own personal results.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #14734729
I think that last comparison just shows how much better the JPG engine is in the Olympus vs the 7D, unless I am missing something. My ISO 6400 images look MUCH better on any of the 3-4 7Ds I have owned than what I see there.

Here is a most recent 7D ISO 6400, completely untouched after the raw conversion. I am not saying that the Olympus wouldn't do better, but just that the 7D samples from that site seem to conflict with my own personal results.



Here is an ISO 12800 before/after sample as well from one of the ballgames I shot.

Overall image:

Crop results:

With no images to directly compare, it is hard to jump to any conclusion one way or the other. The 7D has had praise in the past for its IQ, as has the 5DII. Yet both seem less impressive than OM-D in direct comparison. That is not to fault the 7D or 5DII, but simply to show just what the new OM-D can do! Same as comparing Mark Spitz and Michael Phelps olympic swim times; Spitz is no slouch, Phelps is merely faster.

Here's a photo taken in an extremely dark room in a museum when I was in alaska. The ISO was only 12800!!!! f/2.8 / 1/100 SS.

This was an easy ultra clean ISO 640

I knew one ex pro photog. He used to take pictures to make money for living. Thousands of portraits, 500+ weddings.
So, he knows how to take pictures. Now he takes nothing, but some casual outdoor pictures.
He sold his big&heavy Nikon one year old DSLR and has OM-D now.
I'm looking at this camera outdoor pictures and here is absolutelly nothing in IQ to surpase my 500D with fast zoom or prime on it.
But, once it is time to go for my 500D, I'll replace it with OM-D. Size, the way they made it and weather sealing...

AlanU wrote in post #14734491
The thing about the M43 system is that "wyswyg" (what you see is what you get) in the lcd or view finder. So in other words virtually all of your photos have perfect exposure since you tweak the settings as your in the situation. I dont shoot JPG but realistically for a lazy day I could print the photos straight out of camera.

I find myself agreeing with Alan often, but with this not so much. I look through the view finder and am not overly happy, look at the LCD in play mode and it's better, but man once it's downloaded to the computer I think it looks better yet! Of course I shoot jpeg.

Since I don't think the OP has said what they're looking for in a camera yet I don't want to reply too much. As others have said it depends on what you're shooting. For me, mostly things that hold still unless it's windy, the OMD is awesome! Even with birds it's doing ok so far. I'm fairly pushing the camera in some spots and it's still doing great. Not sure I would have done the switch (yup I'm selling all my canon stuff for this little camera) if my health wasn't dictating the move, but I would have been missing out.

The OMD is what I've always said I wanted in a DSLR. I wanted my A1 digital. Now I have it, no thanks to canon not getting on board soon enough. The OMD really surprises me. I get great shots even with high ISO and a "slow" kit lens.

Check out my pbase page in my sig, click on new arrivals and everything there is taken with the OMD.