Canon 5D2 + 16-35L II vs. Olympus OM-D + 9-18 ...

So I bought my OM-D as a light travel alternative to my hefty 5D Mark II...I finally got both of them out for a quick comparison...both shot at 18mm equivalent, 1/1000s, f5, ISO 200, auto focus, auto WB, JPEG, straight off the card. Here are some 100% crops...I have to say I'm incredibly impressed with the Olympus, especially considering this combo is a fraction of the size, a third of the weight and (new price vs. new price) about half the cost:

The scene:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/56150019@N07/9​172559370/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/56150019@N07/9​172548850/

Just did some more testing...initially I was unhappy with the OM-D's high ISO performance...I generally don't mind a bit of noise, but I HATE it when cameras go overboard and just smudge up the image in an attempt to eradicate all noise...then I realized I could just turn off the camera's noise reduction and *BOOM* I was impressed...so here are the high ISO samples...from left to right, OM-D with "Standard" noise reduction, 5D2 (no NR) and on the far right OM-D with no noise reduction. All shots straight off the card.

Settings: 18mm equivalent, ISO 6400, 1/30s, f4:

The scene:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/56150019@N07/9​174735880/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/56150019@N07/9​174520580/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/56150019@N07/9​172403839/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/56150019@N07/9​172404123/

In your first set, f5 equiv? Do you mean f5 on om-d and f10 on the 5D2?

Also jpeg straight out of camera? Why?

kin2son wrote in post #16077731
In your first set, f5 equiv? Do you mean f5 on om-d and f10 on the 5D2?

Also jpeg straight out of camera? Why?

No, I don't mean f10 on the 5D2, I mean f5 on both. That's the only FAIR comparison. (And no, the DOF doesn't affect it...I did the math, with my focus point being roughly 10m/30 feet away, the depth of field on the OM-D is from 1m/3 feet to infinity, on the 5D2 it's 1.8m/6 feet to infinity).

JPEG straight out of the camera...just because it was the easiest to do, and I usually shoot JPEG (or, sometimes RAW + JPEG).

LowriderS10 wrote in post #16077758
JPEG straight out of the camera...just because it was the easiest to do, and I usually shoot JPEG (or, sometimes RAW + JPEG).

You usually shoot jpeg with a 5D2 and L lens?

Sell the whole lot and invest in m43.

kin2son wrote in post #16077790
You usually shoot jpeg with a 5D2 and L lens?

Sell the whole lot and invest in m43.

Yup. Been doing that for years. I've sold/published thousands of photos.

I am in the process of selling the whole lot and investing in M4/3...and I'll keep selling my photos. You know...the JPEGs.

You have a 21mp camera and you shoot jpg?

ShaneF wrote in post #16077932
You have a 21mp camera and you shoot jpg?

I'm getting the distinct sense that we've covered this before... Waitaminute...I swear I said something clever about selling and publishing a truckload of those JPEGs too...correct me if I'm wrong, though...

Why though? Why limit yourself like that? That's like shooting on 35mm negatives and then getting walmart's one hour photo to develop them for you... I just don't get it. Editing is and always has been a huge part of creating a photo.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #16078003
Why though? Why limit yourself like that? That's like shooting on 35mm negatives and then getting walmart's one hour photo to develop them for you... I just don't get it. Editing is and always has been a huge part of creating a photo.

There are many reasons. One...I started getting serious about digital photography when I was a reporter/photographer.​..we strictly shot JPEGs because they were easier/faster to get from memory card to front page. Also, a lot of our computers sucked, and editing RAW files on them was pretty much impossible. From there, the habit kind of stuck.

Also, I hate editing...I'm starting to enjoy it a little more, but I'd rather take pictures than edit them. Finally, the JPEGs out of these cameras are awesome as they are...I'm still selling shots and no one has ever asked me "Wait a minute...this doesn't look right...did you shoot this in JPEG??!!".

However, now I'm starting to "future proof" myself...the pictures that I think may turn into something that might end up hanging on a wall, I'm taking RAW + JPEGs of...so, in the future, when I feel like bothering with RAW, I can go back and edit them (though the bulk of my photos - which will likely never see more than an 8x10 print or my Flickr - will continue to be shot in JPEG). To be honest, I think 96.7% of the stuff people shoot in RAW is pointless to shoot in RAW...though that may be a conservative estimate...there are more reasons, but these are the main ones, I hope these hold you guys over for a little while.

Other topics you guys may want to considering taking a tangential detour to are:

- What brand of underwear I prefer and why.
- My favourite colour.
- Whether or not chocolate milk is superior to banana milk.

This is like saying my 4k TV (5D2 + L lenses) is no better than my FullHD (OM-D) TV because I primarily watch DVD on it....

What's next? Do you usually shoot in green box mode too?

I don't understand why people are jumping on him using jpeg when you print them out or post them they both will look the same. For me I will use raw on really important stuff from time to time or a really challenging lighting situation but 90% of the time I use jpeg because it's good enough and I don't want to put the extra time into processing when I don't need to.

You may want to alter your JPG settings on the 5D. It's obvious the Oly is putting down much stronger sharpening in these samples.

I totally agree with dumping the 5D for your purposes.

I work as a landscape photographer, and I don't use MF gear. Besides price, I could never carry that weight along with camping gear and food. 6D + 2 lenses is all I can handle.

Portability and versatility are great especially when you still maintain a lot of good image quality.

BTW, I don't think many people taking photos these days ever started with slide film. That was the JPG or the film era, as you had not very many options for post production work. You had to get it right at time of shooting and nothing was forgiven.

shadowcat wrote in post #16078810
but 90% of the time I use jpeg because it's good enough and I don't want to put the extra time into processing when I don't need to.

And guess what, OP just showed that m43 is every bit as good as a ff camera with expensive glass, so why don't you make the switch as well? Saves you money, weight and all the hassle.

kin2son wrote in post #16078857
And guess what, OP just showed that m43 is every bit as good as a ff camera with expensive glass, so why don't you make the switch as well? Saves you money, weight and all the hassle.

Exactly. If you only shoot JPEG there is very little reason to spend over $1000 on camera gear.