Olympus omd em1 iq and af q's

D

Dan74

Messages
678
Name
Daniel
Edit My Images
No
Considering one of these as looking for a lighter system and hoping owners can shed some light

Is the image quality comparable to say a Nikon D7100 (my current camera)? if not what is it's dslr equivalent

Also is the af tracking up there with the Nikon for say birds in flight? or are these still a way off re af tracking

Thanks in advance
 
Dan which aspects of image quality are most important to you?

The AF tracking is not up to good DSLR standards,
but some users get good results by using it in optimal ways.
 
Ulfric M Douglas said:
Dan which aspects of image quality are most important to you?

The AF tracking is not up to good DSLR standards,
but some users get good results by using it in optimal ways.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the replies

I shoot a bit of architecture for my personal projects so need sharp images. As well as the weight saving i was looking at M4/3 as a cheaper way to achieve 600mm equivalent with the 75-300 options

Looks like i'll wait a couple more years until M4/3 has sufficiently advanced to keep me satisfied ;)
 
It'll be great for architecture as long as it's not fast moving architecture! ;)

In all seriousness, mirrorless af tracking seems to be improving quickly but it's still way short of reasonable dslr's
 
gad-westy said:
It'll be great for architecture as long as it's not fast moving architecture! ;)

In all seriousness, mirrorless af tracking seems to be improving quickly but it's still way short of reasonable dslr's
Click to expand...

Ha ! :)

Thought as much , i had an XT1 for a while with a 50-230 for birding and aviation and that was shocking
Loved the camera but couldn't live with the AF tracking
 
X-T1 is pretty good by mirrorless standards, wouldn't expect the E-M1 to be much better than that tbh
 
Dan74 said:
I shoot a bit of architecture for my personal projects so need sharp images.
Click to expand...
Olympus m4/3rds cameras can produce very sharp images,
and many of their lenses are exceedingly sharp.
If sharp is your thing I say go for it!
(I have no experience with the D7100, only the D7000)
 
+1 - I came from a d7000 to an e-m10 and now an e-m1. I'd say the IQ is the same, if not better, with the e-m1 compared to the d7000 but I have no experience of the d7100.
There is no issue panning larger items such as cars but BiF is tricky to say the least so if that's your "thing", I would stay with the NIkon
 
I've just gone full time to the OMD series from d7100, I can say in optimal conditions you would be hard pressed to find a difference in IQ but once the light is a bit more demanding there is a difference. I think it's a decision that only you can decide whether or not you can live with the difference. For me I decided that it's only a hobby for me and very few of my images get printed and are only ever viewed on screen so the mft's are more than adequate...As for tracking I couldn't tell you, I mainly do landscapes.
 
Sometimes I struggle to see the difference between my Olympus EM5-II and my full frame D750, so the IQ difference between a crop and m4/3 will be even less. Of course when the light starts to drop the difference is much more magnified, although m4/3 is still very good. Another difference for me is FF seems to have more depth/pop/3D. EM1 isn't quite as good as the EM5-II in terms of ISO performance though, but not far off.

In terms of tracking/ AF-C he EM1 isn't too bad at all since the recent firmware update, but it still can't compete with DSLR.
 
If architecture is your thing the OMD E-M1 is sharp and has built in keystone effect available which will be very useful for building shots. Size and weight will be very useful also. Focus bracketing will come in handy. The 12 - 40mm 2.8 & 7 - 14mm are great lenses. Ed
 
Thanks for the replies chaps, food for thought indeed.

Huw, that Kite shot is fantastic!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top