jonoslack
Active member
The OMD does very well, but no, I wouldn't put it still on the same field/category of those last two. The high ISO of that Sony sensor is still better as its still its DR and tonality (14-bits raw vs 12-bit raw - and yes, the K-5/D7000 do use the bits). But I agree the OMD does very well.
- Raist
Hi RicardoI think it does look pretty good. Thank you for posting that, that's the kind of shot/situation I want to see the OMD going through. It's no K-5 but it's pretty good, and it doesn't have to be as good as a K-5 to be of interest to me.
How was the AF in this situation (referring to speed, obviously the shot seems reasonably in focus).
Thank again.
- Ricardo
I'm trying to be economical with my posts, so you'll excuse me for two birds with one stone.
I agree, it's not quite up there with the K5 and the D7000 at high ISO . . . but it's quite close, and just for once it's nice to see a 4/3 sensor not drastically under performing (I've never been convinced by the excuses for 4/3 on the basis that the sensor is smaller), sure, it's cropped at the edges, but otherwise it's much too close for the size of an APSc sensor for that to be a limiting factor - it's the cr@p sensors that Panasonic have come up with that are to blame!
So - having agreed that high ISO not as good as a K5/D7000 (but close), I'll go on to AF . . . I don't really use tracking focus, and I suspect that like everything outside Nikon it's not really very good . . .but, like lots of previous Olympus cameras the single shot AF seem very accurate, the difference between this and previous cameras is that it also seems very fast. This picture was taken by touching Sim's eye on the LCD - AF and capture was as good as instantaneous - and that's with the light assist turned off (does anyone really focus by flashing lights in people's eyes?!)