The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

E-5 better in low light than D7000? Yes, maybe.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I posted this on a thread at dpr today. I find the subject so interesting that I repeat it here:

I did a photo shoot yesterday. It was indoor in dim light, no tripod possible, and flash not really usable, since the images should show people in a natural atmosphere with natural lighting.

I used a Nikon D700, half of the time with an 80-200mm f/2.8 and half of the time with the 50mm f/1.8. ISO varied from 800 to 3200. This morning, after reading a thread at dpr about the E-5 review, I asked myself if I could have done the job with a Nikon D7000 or even an Olympus E-5. So I studied the high ISO samples at dpreview, comparing the Olympus, the D7000 and the D3s (The D700 doesn't come up in the comparisons).

The D3s is easily 2 stops better than the E-5, so even with the 35-100 f/2.0, I would be one stop noisier. The comparison with the D7000 is different, however. I would gain one stop because of the faster lens, and comparing ISO800 on the E-5 with ISO1600 from the D7000, the E-5 is better rather than worse, One can of course claim that the 35-200/2.0 is an expensive lens, but so is the Nikkor 70-200.

If we switch to primes, and let's use 50mm eqv. f/1.4 for comparison's sake (That would be Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 for the D3s/700, Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 for the D7000 and Panaleica 25mm f/1.4 for the E-5), the situation is more or less the same. The Olympus loses 1-2 stops on the sensor, but gains 1-3 stops because of IBIS. I would say that the E-5 combo is superior to the D7000 here, and much cheaper.

I don't own an Olympus camera at the moment, but quality of the lenses is so good that I'm tempted by the E-5. The excellent rendering of detail and the complete feature set of the camera makes it a very usable option for all kinds of photography, and absolutely not only for existing users and fanboys.

Unfortunately, the review at dpr fails to see the whole picture here.
 

lambert

New member
I expect a D7000 with 35/1.8 will be better than an E5 with 25/1.4 in low light. The Nikon combo will also cost a lot less ($1400 vs $2600). And will be more comfortable to use over extended periods given that it weighs about 1/3 less.
 
Last edited:

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
A D7000 with 35/1.8 will be better than an E5 with 25/1.4 in low light. The Nikon combo will also cost a lot less ($1400 vs $2600).
The D7000 with 35/1.8 has no IS. Already because of the 2/3 stop slower lens, a lot of the sensor advantage has been eaten up. With the addition of IS, the E-5 will be vastly superior unless there are moving subject involved, which will make the D7000 better, but not much.

It's also worth noting that the only large aperture normal zoom from Nikon, the 17-55/2.8 also lacks IS. For Olympus, there's one very fast (14-35/2.0) zoom, which is stabilised, and two relatively fast (14-54/2.8-3.5 and 12-60/2.8-4.0) for which there are no corresponding Nikkors at all. This is probably even more important than the lenses I mentioned initially. I've been using the Tamron 17-50/2.8 on my Nikons and Fujis for almost three years, and while I was quite happy to start with, serious issues have appeared over time. I simply can't trust the lens to be critically sharp. Tokina and Sigma seems to have similar issues, which leaves me with the sharp, but heavy, large and expensive Nikon. Then I ask myself is an E-5 might be a better idea anyway.

Yes, I know, Pentax... but in this country, Pentax is distributed by a chain of department stores. If it breaks, it's broken. Buy a new one. That way they make more profit, and I get a new camera... :wtf:

The obvious way for a Nikon owner like myself is obviously to upgrade my Nikon gear, but since I need to upgrade more or less the whole lot, from D300 to D7000, D700 or whatever comes after that one, from Tamron 17-50 to Nikkor 17-55 and from 80-200 AF-S to 70-200 AF-S VRII, I can actually switch to Olympus for more and less the same cost and use the GH1 for backup and video.

What annoys me is that, at the end of reviews of cameras from smaller brands, like Olympus and Pentax, there's almost always a little note stating something about "but remember, even if this is a great camera, it's mostly for fanboys and other weirdos".

Oh well... in a few months, Nikon will probably sweep the floor with the new D8000, with 30MP FX sensor and a body the size of my GH1...
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Jorgen,

I am kind of in the same dilemma! I own a D700 and all the new 2.8 zooms from 14-200, I was pretty happy with that combo, at least till I tried the E5 last week.

The colors out of the E5, light metering, IS etc are SO MUCH BETTER than the D700. Also details of the image are much better, at least if you use the 2/35-100. IS is so much more effective compared to the 70-200VR2. And you get IS for all the lenses on the E5, whereas the 14-24 and 24-70 on the D700 are not stabilized.

Which brings me to the next point. Sure the D700 has better high ISO performance, but: if you use the 2.0 lenses from Olympus, this in combination with the more advanced IS in the E5 makes more than up for the additional higher ISO capabilities of the D700. And what you get from the E5 at high ISO is a very nice, film like look, which totally lacks in the D700 images at ISO3200 and above - they look clean like plastic.

I am very sure that the E5 wins hands down against the D7000 and 60D, 7D etc. I am already since a very long time tired of the dpreview reviews, this site remains in my browser only to see latest announcements somehow in time but I could no longer care less about their reviews - just pure BS in my opinion - if you please excuse my wording!

Now I have the E5 with the 12-60 and 35-100 for testing over the weekend and I already am in love with that camera. It can be operated much more efficient than the D700, very much like a Leica could be operated - if you know what I mean. The menues are much easier and straight forward as the Nikon (and Canon and Pentax and Sony) ones and still give you all control you want to have. And the light metering system is so much ahead of all the competition that it almost is a shame that others cannot come close after so many years! AF is lightning fast in good to moderate light, it gets slower till slow in bad light, but on the other side I never use AF assist, which would improve this behavior. I personally do not feel that I miss the Nikon D700 AF (which I find to be top of the notch today). But I can nicely survive with the E5's AF as it is today, for the type of shooting I do more than enough.

So end of the day I am VERY attracted by the E5 and some of their lenses again. I say again, as I went out of their system some 4 years ago, because my E3 had flaws and nobody could fix them. Meanwhile I have the impression, that the E5 is the top E system camera, with that Olympus has reached absolute perfect and professional quality.

Further I talked to Olympus in person and they assured me that the professional E system will continue, so there will be 43 lenses and the E5 and for sure also something like an E6 or E7, which will be an absolute Pro camera body - like the E5 today. It might have only EVF left then, but in pro quality - who knows. And in parallel of course it is obvious that Olympus will put lot of emphasis in the M43 system. So the consumer cameras will be based on this system, or at least be kind of able to take both 43 and M43 lenses (obviously with an adapter).

All that together makes me very confident in the E system. But what is even more important - with the E5 as it is today - I can survive happily the next 3-5 years. And I absolutely do not care about anything further down the road ;)
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Peter,
Very relieving to read your post. I re-read my own, just to check that I'm not going crazy, but in that case, we both are :loco:

The amazing thing is that my comparison is done with dpr's own sample photo. Still, they don't see it. When the E-5 is at ISO 800 and the D7000 at 1600, the E-5 shows more detail and less noise. What is even more astonishing is that, with both cameras at ISO 800, the E-5s show much more detail than the D7000, in spite of fewer megapixels.

Another thing I've noticed during my shooting lately is that, although I've always considered Nikon ergonomics very good, changing parameters is mostly faster with the GH1. That is obviously partly due to the EVF, but also because I need an extra, third hand to push the buttons on the top left, if the lens is too heavy to hold the camera with one.

As for colours, I can confirm what you say. Skin colours in mixed lighting is particularly problematic, which is one of the reasons why I used Fuji cameras. But Olympus, and even Panasonic, are much better in this respect.
 

deckitout

New member
I have been in and out of Olympus for around 6/7 years now, E500, E330, E1, E510 and E3, 11/22, 12/60, 50 macro, 50/200
Most of it is sold now

I really like Oly and it's nice being different, however I am nervous about investing to heavily with them, I am not convinced that the E5 won't be the last of the SLR Camera from them.

Even with M4/3 they are continually losing ground to Panasonic IMO. For a company that produces such wonderful 4/3 glass, where is it in M/43

I shoot with a G1, EPL1, D700 and D90. I tend to do a lot of pixel level editing and the files from the D700 have so much more latitude compared to the 4/3 sensor, and of course it should.

The D700 is a fine Camera but I hate the weight and I just have more passion for Oly but I am just not convinced about there future.
Just my humble opinion of course
 

bcf

Member
Well, try as I might, I cannot see what you are seeing Jorgen... To my eyes the 1600 ISO RAW from the D7000 shows more detail than the 800 ISO one from the E-5, which looks "mushy" in comparison and obviously would be much less malleable in post. And of course no comparison with a D700, which I have.

I had an OM-1, OM-2, OM-4 then E-1, which I loved, then I switched to a D200 and now a D700. I do have a soft spot for Olympus and their marvelous lenses. I too hate the weight of the D700, and would love a lighter system. Well, the E-5 is not lighter. And nothing compares to the D700 at high ISO in that size and weight (well, maybe the 5DMkII). Not the D7000, not the Pentax K-5. So... I'm afraid it will still be D700 with light primes for me (or the old 28-50mm Nikon AI-S zoom, which I got recently and is small and very good).

I understand that coming from a D300 you might see things differently, but I really do not see what you are seeing in DPR RAW samples... Are we looking at the same images? I am comparing for instance DSC_1888.NER (D7000, ISO 1600) with PC200825.ORF (E-5, ISO800).
 

kwalsh

New member
I'm not seeing this extra detail in the E-5 compared to the D7000 at all. I'm definitely seeing that the E-5 is doing an amazing job of resolving detail give its 12MP, just like DPR points out. But I've gone over the image at ISO 800 and 1600 repeatedly in RAW on DPR and there is no point at which the E-5 is out resolving the D7000 except at the very margins of the image where the Olympus optics are out resolving the Nikon optics. At all the points in the center of the image (fur, feathers, fabric, text, money) the D7000 is the same or better than the E-5.

You might be falling for the classic "grain/noise increases apparent acuity" illusion. The Oly image is slightly noisier for sure.

Anyway, as far as IBIS and optics available for Olympus goes I think you've got something there. A camera is definitely more than just its sensor and some test images and measurements!

Ken
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
I need to revert my opinion a bit, after shooting the E5 especially with the 35-100 for today.

The E5 really handles perfect, does a perfect job and great color out of the camera, as also great exposure metering etc. - this is granted! And it probably is the best 43 DSLR ever made. And no single out of focus image, even in bad light.

BUT - late afternoon, early evening I did a lot of comparisons between E5 with 35-100 and D700 with 70-200VR2. To make it short, all results from the D700 at all ISO are better WRT noise and clarity. I think this is because the 70-200VR2 is a very good lens, it also tends to much less over lightning if objects are photographed against the sun setting down and simply the D700 chip is twice the size, which gives much better low ISO performance, although this chip/camera design is now already 3 years old. And it is also clear that the DR of the D700 is much better, there is much more detail in the shadows, where the E5 simply cannot show any more details, because of the noise. We are talking about 1600 - 3200 from the E5 and 3200 - 6400 from the D700.

Even at low ISO (200 or 400) the D700 delivers much clearer images as the E5, which can be of course also seen as "plastic look" and the bit more grainy look of the E5 as more film like. But it simply is an unfair comparison between a 43 chip and a FF chip.

WRT size and handling - the D700 with 24-70 or 70-200 is almost same size and weight as the E5 with 14-35 or 35-200 respectively. The only thing which I cannot deny is that the E5 operation is for me much more logical compared to the D700. But again this might be just my subjective feeling.

To make the long story short - I found that I will stay with the D700 and lenses and not switch back to Olympus and their E5, simply not worth the effort and money because I would just get less overall IQ and had to pump money in. Somehow I hate this findings, but the results are so clear that I cannot just ignore them.

Jorgen, WRT your thoughts, I still think the E5 is better (or equally good) as the APSC size 16MP DSLRs - I cannot compare to D7000, but to K5 and here I would clearly prefer the E5 and Oly glass.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Jorgen, WRT your thoughts, I still think the E5 is better (or equally good) as the APSC size 16MP DSLRs - I cannot compare to D7000, but to K5 and here I would clearly prefer the E5 and Oly glass.
Peter - writing off the K5 with it's fantastic dynamic range and high ISO on the basis of a week with the camera with a $100 kit lens is not reasonable.

Mind you - I completely agree with you and Jorgen about the lovely Olympus lenses - I just don't understand why the E5 (which is clearly a fine camera) has to be as big as full frame cameras like the D700 and the Sony A900.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Interesting comments from all here. This is probably the time to sit on the fence for a few months. I would be surprised if we don't see professional EVIL cameras from Olympus as well as Nikon this year. Maybe even an FX camera in the D7000 body. Compact seems to be the trend now, and I'm all for that. Lenses are a different matter of course, so maybe a combination of m4/3 and Nikon FX is the solution. In that case, I have enough lenses to last a lifetime (or at least a few more months :D).

I'll do some comparisons in the morning with regards to detail rendering.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Interesting comments from all here. This is probably the time to sit on the fence for a few months. I would be surprised if we don't see professional EVIL cameras from Olympus as well as Nikon this year. Maybe even an FX camera in the D7000 body. Compact seems to be the trend now, and I'm all for that. Lenses are a different matter of course, so maybe a combination of m4/3 and Nikon FX is the solution. In that case, I have enough lenses to last a lifetime (or at least a few more months :D).

I'll do some comparisons in the morning with regards to detail rendering.
I think you're probably right to wait - looking at rumours about the A77, it certainly looks worth waiting for (not sure how compact it'll be though).
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Peter - writing off the K5 with it's fantastic dynamic range and high ISO on the basis of a week with the camera with a $100 kit lens is not reasonable.

Mind you - I completely agree with you and Jorgen about the lovely Olympus lenses - I just don't understand why the E5 (which is clearly a fine camera) has to be as big as full frame cameras like the D700 and the Sony A900.
With the right lenses the K5 may be really good. But I had also camera issues, especially I did not like the unreliable AF. It was very much like the AF in my E3. Now the E5 is definitely a big step forward with AF performance.

Having shot with both the D700 and E5 today the equal size of both just is irritating, especially if you think that the 43 chip is just half the size of the FF chip. While it is nice to have lenses with 2.0 opening, the weight is a different thing. Anyway wonderful lenses - sigh ....
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Interesting comments from all here. This is probably the time to sit on the fence for a few months. I would be surprised if we don't see professional EVIL cameras from Olympus as well as Nikon this year. Maybe even an FX camera in the D7000 body. Compact seems to be the trend now, and I'm all for that. Lenses are a different matter of course, so maybe a combination of m4/3 and Nikon FX is the solution. In that case, I have enough lenses to last a lifetime (or at least a few more months :D).

I'll do some comparisons in the morning with regards to detail rendering.
An FX sensor in a D7000 size camera would be lovely and I think even doable!

The lesson learned today is that for a DSLR I should no longer try to go back to something less than FF. The FF sensor size is definitely superior to any APSC or 43 sensor, no matter which lenses you put in front of the smaller sensor cameras.

For someone mainly working below ISO800 the E5 could really be the best choice. But as soon as you go above ISO 800 the sensor size and its limitations show clearly up. There can be arguments around that, end of the day this is clearly to be seen - at least in direct comparisons.

BTW - coming back to dpreview and tests I really do not understand that hey cannot perform such direct comparison tests. This would be really helpful, much more than the tests and reviews they are wasting their time.

WRT next FF Nikon - there are rumors that a D700 successor should be launched this year, some even say already in the next few months. Which would make sense, as the D700 is now 3 years on the market. So waiting is maybe the right thing to do.

And also a M43 Olympus pro body is rumored, which would hopefully come with a GH2 like sensor. This sensor performs definitely better WRT higher resolution and better high ISO performance and better dynamic range than the sensor in the E5. Combine that with the latest Olympus True Picture processing and it should be a stellar thing!
 

jonoslack

Active member
With the right lenses the K5 may be really good. But I had also camera issues, especially I did not like the unreliable AF. It was very much like the AF in my E3. Now the E5 is definitely a big step forward with AF performance.
Well - the first firmware update improved things (did you have that?), and it seems there is another one on the way - but apart from testing (where I can see issues as well) I've found the AF to be very reliable in 'real life' even in low light . . . . it's a new AF module (also designed for the MF 645), and Pentax do have a history of getting these things right.

The lesson learned today is that for a DSLR I should no longer try to go back to something less than FF. The FF sensor size is definitely superior to any APSC or 43 sensor, no matter which lenses you put in front of the smaller sensor cameras.
I disagree so radically with this - I have / want / need a full frame 35mm camera, it has obvious advantages. But if I'm going to have a decent small dSLR, then it can't be full frame, because of the lenses - even if Nikon can squeeze a FF sensor into a D7000 sized body (as you say, possible I'm sure), there really isn't much point if you have to use lenses like the 24-70 and 70-200 to take advantage of the sensor.

I think the time it's taken Nikon to update the D700, and Canon the 5DMk II indicates that camera manufacturers on the whole feel the same way.

Added to which the high ISO from the new Sony APS-c sensor is great - really good - Jorgen's argument in favour of the E5 is quite comprehensible, but it hinges around the existence of fast (and excellent) Olympus glass (and the fact that there's nobody selling the K5 on a professional basis where he lives :loco:)

I think the tragedy of the E5 is that Olympus have obviously done the very best they can with the AF and ergonomics, and their glass is peerless . . . . . . but they're stuck with a mediocre Panasonic sensor (even if they've done their very best with it), and they've made a camera twice as big as it needs to be - which defeats the whole original concept of 4/3. If the E5 was the size of the Pentax, with a sensor the quality of the Sony sensor in the K5, then I'd be there in a second . . . .
 

bcf

Member
I disagree so radically with this - I have / want / need a full frame 35mm camera, it has obvious advantages. But if I'm going to have a decent small dSLR, then it can't be full frame, because of the lenses - even if Nikon can squeeze a FF sensor into a D7000 sized body (as you say, possible I'm sure), there really isn't much point if you have to use lenses like the 24-70 and 70-200 to take advantage of the sensor.
True, that's the point with Nikon glass. The only way out for me so far has been to use small prime lenses, especially the Voigtlander ones, and old AI-S glass. But Nikon professional f/2.8 zooms, and even prime lenses such as the 24/1.4, are huge. I do not want to carry this, for the type of photography that I do most (travel/street).

Maybe with the new trend towards smaller cameras, Nikon and Canon will find it interesting commercially to develop smaller lenses, with slightly less wide apertures. I find the compromise Olympus used with the 14-54 and 11-22, which are f/2.8-3.5 and not strictly f/2.8, was quite smart.
 

lambert

New member
For travel/street photography, there's no need to shoot full frame. A D7000 or K5 is more than up to the task. In the case of Nikon, the new 35/1.8 or 50/1.4 G lenses are compact, very well priced and perform exceptionally well (fast focus, high IQ).

I shot the Oly 14-54 extensively with my E1 and it's a top lens. But no better than the Nikon 18-70 which offers the same zoom range and effective aperture range (f3.5-4.5 on Nikon is pretty much equivalent to f2.8-3.5 on Oly given Nikon's larger APS sensor).


True, that's the point with Nikon glass. The only way out for me so far has been to use small prime lenses, especially the Voigtlander ones, and old AI-S glass. But Nikon professional f/2.8 zooms, and even prime lenses such as the 24/1.4, are huge. I do not want to carry this, for the type of photography that I do most (travel/street).

Maybe with the new trend towards smaller cameras, Nikon and Canon will find it interesting commercially to develop smaller lenses, with slightly less wide apertures. I find the compromise Olympus used with the 14-54 and 11-22, which are f/2.8-3.5 and not strictly f/2.8, was quite smart.
 

bcf

Member
For travel/street photography, there's no need to shoot full frame.
Well I disagree, not for the format itself actually, but for 2 consequences of the format: the quality of the viewfinder, and the ability to reach a better quality at high ISO than with an APS or 4/3 sensor.
 
R

Ronan

Guest
No, the E-5 does not handle low light better than the D7000...

And did someone replace their D300/s with a D7000??? :wtf:

BTW the way you shoot makes a huge difference with noise control... Simply boosting the ISO to absurd numbers... well yeah (this isn't directed at anyone in general, maybe expect all the people to come to me for advice...).

Well I disagree, not for the format itself actually, but for 2 consequences of the format: the quality of the viewfinder, and the ability to reach a better quality at high ISO than with an APS or 4/3 sensor.
100% Agree.

Contrary to what some people think... FF isn't some-kind of super-corporation scheme to take more money from us... It actually does work...

Maybe with the new trend towards smaller cameras, Nikon and Canon will find it interesting commercially to develop smaller lenses, with slightly less wide apertures. I find the compromise Olympus used with the 14-54 and 11-22, which are f/2.8-3.5 and not strictly f/2.8, was quite smart.
DSLR's are plenty small enough. Take a look at the amateur section, they are small! Also big glass is big... for a reason ;)

Nikon & Canon don't make professional DSLR's big for fun... Its because of whats inside, for protection and comfort.

But Nikon is listening, they have a new line of mirror-less interchangeable lens cameras coming out 'soon'. The nickname for it is EVIL, already plenty of patents and information available, just no release date yet. But hey, Nikon's President said 'soon' so... :p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top