E-M1 or D610

Dave in Wales

Dave in Wales

Messages
3,386
Edit My Images
Yes
After selling off all my M4/3 gear I'm in the market for a camera and JUST ONE lens.

I've had the E-M1/12-40mm it gave excellent quality, I loved it.

But should I accept this opportunity to change and go FF, in the shape of a D610/24-85mm.

Size/weight is not really a problem, and there is not a lot of difference in price.

Must be honest though, I'm leaning towards the Nikon and getting a 'real-mans-camera' back in my hands.

Opinions from M4/3 to FF converts welcome please, my main concern is IQ.
 
Interested to read the advice you get. Im in a very similar position coming from EM1 and the 12-40 lens. Im tempted by the D750 but there is quite a price difference from the D610. I understand the D750 gains the focus ability of the D800. But not sure is worth the extra over the D610 that we have both been tempted with.
 
OK so I"m lucky enough to have the EM5-II with 12-40mm f2.8 (as well as the 45mm f1.8 and 40-150mm R) and the D750 with various lenses which are similar enough to give an idea of the EM1 vs D610, or in the case of Liyama the Em1 vs D750.

In some situations it is extremely hard/nigh on impossible to tell the difference in IQ between the EM5-II and D750. Such an example is in the studio. I got invited to both a Nikon and Olympus Studio lighting classes last year and I really can't tell the difference. OK so I wasn't using comparative lenses, one being a prime (the £180 45mm f1.8 Olympus) and one a pro zoom (the £1500 70-200mm f2.8 VRII Nikon) but if you look at it on price alone the Nikon should be significantly better but as I said already I can't see any difference in sharpness or detail.

In the 'real world' things are a little different. At base ISO's again there's not a lot to split them. OK for landscapes the dynamic range of the D750 helps a lot, and the recovery in PP on the D750 is ridiculous, especially the shadow recovery. Also, overall I would say that the D750 has more pop and depth to an image, but this of course depends on subject matter etc and sometimes it's very subtle. Start ramping up ISO and the difference becomes more significant. There's the obvious noise differences but the 'pop'/depth of the image difference widens too. I find at higher ISO's (1600+) the EM5-II images start to look a bit flat.

Auto WB and metering of the D750 is significantly better, I don't know how they do it but I can leave it in Auto WB and wide/matrix metering 99% of the time and it gets it right. Autofocus is another area where the D750 excels over the EM5-II. In S-AF the EM5-II is mega quick, but the D750 is quicker and more consistent. In C-AF there's no comparison, absolute night and day. AF in low light, again no comparison, the D750 can see in the dark.

Overall I find the controls of the D750 better, and it's quicker to access everything such as changing metering modes, AF modes etc. (one hint is to set the record button as ISO as it makes changing ISO much quicker)

One huge advantage of the EM5-II is the IBIS, the best IS of any kind I've used, truly remarkable. I can handhold at 40mm (80mm eq) at 1s. The other advantage of the EM5-II is AF in liveview (using rear screen) is just as quick as the viewfinder, AF in liveview on the D750 is painfully slow.

The EM5-II is a truly great camera, and exceptional camera in fact, but I always choose to use the D750 as it's that much better.

As for the D610 vs D750, well the sensor is the same so performance and PP recovery etc should be the same. The AF spread on he D610 is quite small which can be an issue. AF spread on FF is small anyway, and can be limiting on occasion on the D750 so is even more limiting on the D610. Also the D750 has 51 AF points with 15 cross type vs 39 AF points and 9 cross type on the D610. The grip on the D750 is much nicer imo (at the expense of a smaller top LCD display), and the flip screen on the D750 comes in very handy for landscapes especially. So is the D750 worth £300 more than the D610? Only the individual can decide. For me though it's a resounding yes.

TBH I use my Olly so little I'm probably going to put it up for sale this weekend. I'm just going to by a high end compact for those times I absolutely don't want to be carrying any bulk, for the rest of the time I'd rather put up with the weight and use my D750.
 
Last edited:
I have MFT and FF.

I use the FF as my luxury and best quality kit and MFT for when I want something more compact but if bulk and weight aren't issues then I think that the other differences should be considered before making a decision such as the EVF v OVF and WYSIWYG v unaided optical view and other things such as JPEG pre-sets and emulations which don't matter to me might matter to the OP. Lenses can of course make a difference and I suppose the choices for each system need to be considered. I don't know how good the Nikon 24-85mm is but there are a couple of quality MFT 12-35mm f2.8 lenses.

After all that and on file quality and ignoring menu options, film emulations and the like and even lenses... personally I find that my FF A7 gives files that my GX7 can't match if I want to go pixel peeping and I'd assume that the same is true of the Nikon v Olympus if you want to go pixel peeping. Real world whole image differences may be minimal.

Good luck choosing.
 
snerkler said:
OK so I"m lucky enough to have the EM5-II with 12-40mm f2.8 (as well as the 45mm f1.8 and 40-150mm R) and the D750 with various lenses which are similar enough to give an idea of the EM1 vs D610, or in the case of Liyama the Em1 vs D750.

In some situations it is extremely hard/nigh on impossible to tell the difference in IQ between the EM5-II and D750. Such an example is in the studio. I got invited to both a Nikon and Olympus Studio lighting classes last year and I really can't tell the difference. OK so I wasn't using comparative lenses, one being a prime (the £180 45mm f1.8 Olympus) and one a pro zoom (the £1500 70-200mm f2.8 VRII Nikon) but if you look at it on price alone the Nikon should be significantly better but as I said already I can't see any difference in sharpness or detail.

In the 'real world' things are a little different. At base ISO's again there's not a lot to split them. OK for landscapes the dynamic range of the D750 helps a lot, and the recovery in PP on the D750 is ridiculous, especially the shadow recovery. Also, overall I would say that the D750 has more pop and depth to an image, but this of course depends on subject matter etc and sometimes it's very subtle. Start ramping up ISO and the difference becomes more significant. There's the obvious noise differences but the 'pop'/depth of the image difference widens too. I find at higher ISO's (1600+) the EM5-II images start to look a bit flat.

Auto WB and metering of the D750 is significantly better, I don't know how they do it but I can leave it in Auto WB and wide/matrix metering 99% of the time and it gets it right. Autofocus is another area where the D750 excels over the EM5-II. In S-AF the EM5-II is mega quick, but the D750 is quicker and more consistent. In C-AF there's no comparison, absolute night and day. AF in low light, again no comparison, the D750 can see in the dark.

Overall I find the controls of the D750 better, and it's quicker to access everything such as changing metering modes, AF modes etc. (one hint is to set the record button as ISO as it makes changing ISO much quicker)

One huge advantage of the EM5-II is the IBIS, the best IS of any kind I've used, truly remarkable. I can handhold at 40mm (80mm eq) at 1s. The other advantage of the EM5-II is AF in liveview (using rear screen) is just as quick as the viewfinder, AF in liveview on the D750 is painfully slow.

The EM5-II is a truly great camera, and exceptional camera in fact, but I always choose to use the D750 as it's that much better.

As for the D610 vs D750, well the sensor is the same so performance and PP recovery etc should be the same. The AF spread on he D610 is quite small which can be an issue. AF spread on FF is small anyway, and can be limiting on occasion on the D750 so is even more limiting on the D610. Also the D750 has 51 AF points with 15 cross type vs 39 AF points and 9 cross type on the D610. The grip on the D750 is much nicer imo (at the expense of a smaller top LCD display), and the flip screen on the D750 comes in very handy for landscapes especially. So is the D750 worth £300 more than the D610? Only the individual can decide. For me though it's a resounding yes.

TBH I use my Olly so little I'm probably going to put it up for sale this weekend. I'm just going to by a high end compact for those times I absolutely don't want to be carrying any bulk, for the rest of the time I'd rather put up with the weight and use my D750.
Click to expand...

woof woof said:
I have MFT and FF.

I use the FF as my luxury and best quality kit and MFT for when I want something more compact but if bulk and weight aren't issues then I think that the other differences should be considered before making a decision such as the EVF v OVF and WYSIWYG v unaided optical view and other things such as JPEG pre-sets and emulations which don't matter to me might matter to the OP. Lenses can of course make a difference and I suppose the choices for each system need to be considered. I don't know how good the Nikon 24-85mm is but there are a couple of quality MFT 12-35mm f2.8 lenses.

After all that and on file quality and ignoring menu options, film emulations and the like and even lenses... personally I find that my FF A7 gives files that my GX7 can't match if I want to go pixel peeping and I'd assume that the same is true of the Nikon v Olympus if you want to go pixel peeping. Real world whole image differences may be minimal.

Good luck choosing.
Click to expand...

Thank you to both. Im sure the OP feels as I do that these are helpful.
 
If I were looking at Nikon (and I'm not) I would side-step the 610 and go for the D750, much better all round package and it's a smidgen smaller and lighter (still big and heavy though).
I'll add that the 24-85 is no match for the all-round excellence of an Oly 12-40.

What about the new Pentax K1? If you're not into fast action I would say it's likely got all Nikons covered including the D810.

Archie on E-Group has a good point, if you're only going for a single lens solution why consider an E-M1 or Dxxx any how?
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
I'm not sure I'd agree with you re the 24-85mm VR tbh, it's a very sharp lens with great detail. What it lacks in aperture the D750 makes up for in terms of subject isolation and also noise from using higher ISO due to the smaller aperture. The main advantage of the 12-40 is the weather sealing.

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compa...28-PRO-on-Olympus-OM-D-E-M1__971_975_1233_909


.
Click to expand...

http://slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/nikon24-85f35-45vr/ff/tloader.htm

http://slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/olympus12-40f28m/tloader.htm

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/768-nikkorafs2485vrff?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/m43/862_oly1240?start=1

Sadly no contest in my book.
 
Last edited:
Greytop said:
http://slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/nikon24-85f35-45vr/ff/tloader.htm


http://slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/nikon24-85f35-45vr/ff/tloader.htm

http://slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/olympus12-40f28m/tloader.htm

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/768-nikkorafs2485vrff?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/m43/862_oly1240?start=1

Sadly no contest in my book.
Click to expand...
Can't access the top two links on my phone but looking at the photozone links they show that the 24-85mm has more resolution/is sharper. The Nikon is nearly 4000 Lw/ph in the centre compared with circa 3100 on the Olly. Ok so there's more of a drop off on the edges on the borders of the Nikon, but even though it's dropped off a lot the borders still resolve more than the Olly.

Also, if you look at the uncorrected RAWs of the Olly they show really bad distortion and vignetting. The fact that Olly can correct this in camera is no different to someone correcting the Nikon lens in Lightroom or similar at the click of a button.

I'm not bagging in the 12-40mm, after all I have it and really like it. But based on images I can't rate it better than the Nikon, let alone significantly better. On top of this both DXO and photozone show the Nikon to be better.

Obviously if I've misunderstood the photozone charts then I'm happy to be corrected as always. But the images from the 24-85mm G speak for themselves. If you want an example head over to the D750 thread and check out Anibap's pics (y)
 
snerkler said:
Can't access the top two links on my phone but looking at the photozone links they show that the 24-85mm has more resolution/is sharper. The Nikon is nearly 4000 Lw/ph in the centre compared with circa 3100 on the Olly. Ok so there's more of a drop off on the edges on the borders of the Nikon, but even though it's dropped off a lot the borders still resolve more than the Olly.

Also, if you look at the uncorrected RAWs of the Olly they show really bad distortion and vignetting. The fact that Olly can correct this in camera is no different to someone correcting the Nikon lens in Lightroom or similar at the click of a button.

I'm not bagging in the 12-40mm, after all I have it and really like it. But based on images I can't rate it better than the Nikon, let alone significantly better. On top of this both DXO and photozone show the Nikon to be better.

Obviously if I've misunderstood the photozone charts then I'm happy to be corrected as always. But the images from the 24-85mm G speak for themselves. If you want an example head over to the D750 thread and check out Anibap's pics (y)
Click to expand...

Here is the full review on SLR gear
http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/nikon/24-85mm-f3.5-4.5g-ed-vr-af-s-nikkor/review

As a comparison the 12-40 review
http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/olympus/12-40mm-f2.8-pro-m.zuiko-digital-ed/review/

To me corner softness is the big turn off, I can see that you have to stop down the 24-85 significantly (35 mm frame example) before it becomes acceptable. The 12-40 is sharp across the frame from wide open throughout it's useable f stop range until defraction sets in.
To my mind there are therefore more compromises with the 24-85 and like you I'm not saying the 24-85 is bad it's just not the consistent performer the Oly is IMHO :)
 
Last edited:
Greytop said:
Here is the full review on SLR gear
http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/nikon/24-85mm-f3.5-4.5g-ed-vr-af-s-nikkor/review

As a comparison the 12-40 review
http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/olympus/12-40mm-f2.8-pro-m.zuiko-digital-ed/review/

To me corner softness is the big turn off, I can see that you have to stop down the 24-85 significantly (35 mm frame example) before it becomes acceptable. The 12-40 is sharp across the frame from wide open throughout it's useable f stop range until detraction sets in.
To my mind there are therefore more compromises with the 24-85 and like you I'm not saying the 24-85 is bad it's just not the consistent performer the Oly is IMHO :)

Edit:
Click to expand...
Fair do's that's personal preference, it's just that you said the 24-85mm is no match for the Olly but I was just pointing out it was :p I'd personally rather have a lens that is sharper across 2/3 of the frame, significantly so in the centre. You only have to stop down to f5.6 for the 24-85mm cornered to become comparable to the Olly, which would give the same DOF as the Olly at f2.8, and my D750 is easily 2 stops better in noise handling to compensate for lack of light. Besides, on FF I'm shooting landscapes (which is where edge sharpness is important) at f8-11 anyway and at these apertures the 24-85mm is sharper than the Olly throughout the entire frame. For most other subjects I shoot I'm only really concerned with centre sharpness and again the 24-85mm is significantly better.

But as already stated this is preference. Plus sharpness doesn't tell you everything about the lens. The Olly does render really nicely and OOF areas are very nice. The Olly is weather sealed too of course. But it's twice the price of the Nikon.
 
The noise handling really only becomes an issue if light is in short supply and then you have IBIS with Olympus, of course that doesn't help with faster moving subjects but with landscapes it's normally fine.
The resolution factors are not clear either as you have to remember you are comparing apples an oranges in terms of the sensor resolution. In fact in absolute terms the 12-40 is having to work much harder to achieve the image resolution than it's 35mm frame counterpart.
Anyhow I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree ;)

Also apologies to Dave for going a tad off subject!!
 
Last edited:
Greytop said:
The noise handling really only becomes an issue if light is in short supply and then you have IBIS with Olympus, of course that doesn't help with faster moving subjects but with landscapes it's normally fine.
The resolution factors are not clear either as you have to remember you are comparing apples an oranges in terms of the sensor resolution. In fact in absolute terms the 12-40 is having to work much harder to achieve the image resolution than it's 35mm frame counterpart.
Anyhow I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree ;)

Also apologies to Dave for going a tad off subject!!
Click to expand...
(y)
 
FWIW I kept my EM1 and 12-40 and sold my D610.

Size trumped better low light performance for me.

In good light I had to look at 100% and actually LOOK for differences and at that point I thought is it really worth the extra size/weight, I thought no. Of course, YMMV.
 
Nawty said:
FWIW I kept my EM1 and 12-40 and sold my D610.

Size trumped better low light performance for me.

In good light I had to look at 100% and actually LOOK for differences and at that point I thought is it really worth the extra size/weight, I thought no. Of course, YMMV.
Click to expand...

Thanks all for your input, Ned may have pointed me in the right direction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top