Olympus OM-D E-M10 or Sony A6000?

shinji said:

Micro 4/3 is a step down in sensor size

Click to expand...

Nevertheless, they deliver exactly the same noise performance and DR as current top-of-the-line 24 Mpixel APS-C sensors (that of the a6000, d3300, d5300 etc.) Their only downside is being 16 Mpixels. However, it's definitely an advantage if you prefer less noisy images to more megapixels. This is why the GM1 was also high on my purchase list (along with the a6000 + 16-50 and the D5300 + 18-140) before, finally, deciding for the Fuji X-E1 because of the, now, very friendly prices.

and Fuji's lenses are quite expensive.

Click to expand...

Disagreed. It's mostly(*) only with Fuji that kit lens aren't garbage. Actually, the Sony 16-70 f/4 can't really hold a candle to the significantly cheaper and brighter (starting at f/2.8, ending at f/4) 18-55 Fuji kit lens. Heck, even the super-cheap Fuji 50-230 (also available via double-kits) is significantly better than anything in its price range for any other DSLR / MILC.

Sure, some of their primes (particularly the absolutely excellent 35mm f/1.4 or the brand new 10-24) are indeed pretty expensive. WRT the 10-24, it's so expensive I'll go for the Sigma 8-16 instead with the Nikon mount - for almost half the price. As it's a UWA lens w/o OIS, the lack of AF / OIS support on an X systems body isn't that big a problem. (With a long lens with OIS, this wouldn't be the case, naturally.)

*: the Pana 12-32 (coming only with the GM1) and the Nikon 18-140 (kitted with the otherwise too excellent D5300) are also excellent. So are - WRT cameras vastly over $1000 - the Oly kits with the 12-40 f/2.8 Pro or any Pana high-end kits with the 12-35.

kingalexthe1st said:

Without trying to start a war of opinions on the benefits of a particular sensor size, what are your hesitations on moving to a smaller m43 sensor?

Alex
____________

Click to expand...

The weaker low light performance. Most of the photos I take are at shows, of people indoors, and stuff like that where the venue's lighting leaves a lot to be desired.

I've actually been trying to see if I could get by with the RX100 III and its 1" sensor. The Panasonic GM1 is another option I'm considering, as is the Canon G1X II...which I'd love to go back to Canon. That's what I started with, it's the menu system I prefer, and to my eye produces the best looking skin tones and colors. That sensor in the G1X II is actually larger than Micro 4/3, just using technology that is a bit dated.

Menneisyys2 said:

Nevertheless, they deliver exactly the same noise performance and DR as current top-of-the-line 24 Mpixel APS-C sensors (that of the a6000, d3300, d5300 etc.) Their only downside is being 16 Mpixels. However, it's definitely an advantage if you prefer less noisy images to more megapixels. This is why the GM1 was also high on my purchase list (along with the a6000 + 16-50 and the D5300 + 18-140) before, finally, deciding for the Fuji X-E1 because of the, now, very friendly prices.

Click to expand...

This isn't true at high ISO. I've just been deciding if the difference is something I can live with. DPReview actually went into this in their GM1 review http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-gm1/11

Menneisyys2 said:

Disagreed. It's mostly(*) only with Fuji that kit lens aren't garbage. Actually, the Sony 16-70 f/4 can't really hold a candle to the significantly cheaper and brighter (starting at f/2.8, ending at f/4) 18-55 Fuji kit lens. Heck, even the super-cheap Fuji 50-230 (also available via double-kits) is significantly better than anything in its price range for any other DSLR / MILC.

Sure, some of their primes (particularly the absolutely excellent 35mm f/1.4 or the brand new 10-24) are indeed pretty expensive. WRT the 10-24, it's so expensive I'll go for the Sigma 8-16 instead with the Nikon mount - for almost half the price. As it's a UWA lens w/o OIS, the lack of AF / OIS support on an X systems body isn't that big a problem. (With a long lens with OIS, this wouldn't be the case, naturally.)

*: the Pana 12-32 (coming only with the GM1) and the Nikon 18-140 (kitted with the otherwise too excellent D5300) are also excellent. So are - WRT cameras vastly over $1000 - the Oly kits with the 12-40 f/2.8 Pro or any Pana high-end kits with the 12-35.

Click to expand...

Fuji's 23mm f/1.4 is $900. The 35mm you're referring to is $600 (Sony's, which has image stabilization, is $450). If we're including Nikon in this, then their 35mm f/1.8 is only $200.

I don't use zooms all that much... and the only reason I still have the 16-50mm for my Sony is because I figure it's easier to sell later on if I include the kit lens. Supposedly the successor to the X100S will be unveiled at Photokina, and I may consider that as another alternative.

shinji said:

This isn't true at high ISO. I've just been deciding if the difference is something I can live with. DPReview actually went into this in their GM1 review http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-gm1/11

Click to expand...

Interestingly, if you closely examine the comparison tool at high ISO RAW, you'll see the GM1 is definitely not significantly (if at all!) worse than either the 16 Mpixel 3N or the 24Mp A6000. (JPEG's are another question - those of Pana are indeed significantly less saturated.)

IMHO, in RAW, the GM1 is pretty much comparable to both Sony cameras.

----------

shinji said:

That's what I started with, it's the menu system I prefer, and to my eye produces the best looking skin tones and colors. That sensor in the G1X II is actually larger than Micro 4/3, just using technology that is a bit dated.

Click to expand...

Yup, the sensor isn't very good WRT DR. Neither is the video. However, the lens is great.

Too bad it's a bit overpriced. For, say, 60% the current price, it'd be a great alternative to current fixed-lens high-end enthusiast cameras. Currently, I'd prefer the RX100 MkIII to it because of the size advantage and the much superior video quality.

Glad I found this thread. I currently have a Canon T4i and a Fujifilm x20. I want to replace the fuji x20 with either the sony a6000 or the olympus em10.

I'll only be using the kit lens and one additional prime lens. As of right now, I'm just using jpeg. Video is not a huge factor but if it focuses better than my 18-135mm stm on my canon, I will probably use it to film my 2 year old. I would love to have a touch screen but I'm willing to give that up for quality low light photos.

I was going to purchase the oly, but after reading up on the Sony for the past hour, I'm leaning towards it. I've gone through a few mirrorless cameras.

If this sony is as good as everyone suggests, I'm hoping I can get rid of my dslr. If only it had a touchscreen.

I just read a few reviews that said the sony a6000 isn't able to record video for more than 10-12 minutes without overheating.

Under $1,000, Can the Nikon D5300 be beaten?

I would choose the Nikon D5300 over the Sony A6000 any day and here's why:

- Way more lenses to choose from with Nikon than with Sony
- 40% better battery life
- A proper external mic jack (so important to use microphones in your video for better quality)

http://hzz.hubpages.com/hub/Sony-A6...e-best-mirrorless-vs-the-best-DSLR-Under-1000

Menneisyys2 said:

Nevertheless, they deliver exactly the same noise performance and DR as current top-of-the-line 24 Mpixel APS-C sensors (that of the a6000, d3300, d5300 etc.) Their only downside is being 16 Mpixels. However, it's definitely an advantage if you prefer less noisy images to more megapixels. This is why the GM1 was also high on my purchase list (along with the a6000 + 16-50 and the D5300 + 18-140) before, finally, deciding for the Fuji X-E1 because of the, now, very friendly prices.



Disagreed. It's mostly(*) only with Fuji that kit lens aren't garbage. Actually, the Sony 16-70 f/4 can't really hold a candle to the significantly cheaper and brighter (starting at f/2.8, ending at f/4) 18-55 Fuji kit lens. Heck, even the super-cheap Fuji 50-230 (also available via double-kits) is significantly better than anything in its price range for any other DSLR / MILC.

Sure, some of their primes (particularly the absolutely excellent 35mm f/1.4 or the brand new 10-24) are indeed pretty expensive. WRT the 10-24, it's so expensive I'll go for the Sigma 8-16 instead with the Nikon mount - for almost half the price. As it's a UWA lens w/o OIS, the lack of AF / OIS support on an X systems body isn't that big a problem. (With a long lens with OIS, this wouldn't be the case, naturally.)

*: the Pana 12-32 (coming only with the GM1) and the Nikon 18-140 (kitted with the otherwise too excellent D5300) are also excellent. So are - WRT cameras vastly over $1000 - the Oly kits with the 12-40 f/2.8 Pro or any Pana high-end kits with the 12-35.

Click to expand...

yakapo said:

I want to replace the fuji x20 with either the sony a6000 or the olympus em10.
...
As of right now, I'm just using jpeg.

Click to expand...

If you don't want to process RAW's, the Oly is the way to go. Sony has a significantly lower-quality JPEG engine.

MCAsan said:

I think the pixel density of 16MB in a small sensor format can lead to some nice shots. This is with E-M1 using a Panasonic 100-300mm lens shot in Aperture priority, 228mm, f16, ISO1600. Not bad for my first wildlife shoot with that combo. Click on the image for a larger view of it.

Click to expand...

Beautiful shot of a deer!

Menneisyys2 said:

If you don't want to process RAW's, the Oly is the way to go. Sony has a significantly lower-quality JPEG engine.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I was leaning towards the Sony. Used nex 6 go for cheap. I also like the fact that the oly has a touchscreen.

-----

If I was going to sell my canon 50mm 1.4, what could I get for it? $300? I wonder if I can trade it somewhere towards a camera purchase.

I've decided to replace my D7000 with a Sony a6000. The a6000 is generally a better camera than my, now dated, D7000 and it's smaller, lighter and more convenient. I found myself not taking my camera anywhere because it was such a pain to carry around. I'm looking forward to having something far more convenient to carry around which is going to give me higher resolution files and I'm not gonna lose any of the controls. I honestly don't think DSLRs have a lot of time left on the market, with Sony and other companies developing full frame mirror-less cameras, even professionals won't have a lot of reason to stick with DSLRs. That is, if they can make mirror-less cameras offer all the same resolutions and functions that professionals need.

The a6000 also offers far more autofocus points and 'the fastest auto focus system in the world'.

----------

yakapo said:

Thanks. I was leaning towards the Sony. Used nex 6 go for cheap. I also like the fact that the oly has a touchscreen.

-----

If I was going to sell my canon 50mm 1.4, what could I get for it? $300? I wonder if I can trade it somewhere towards a camera purchase.

Click to expand...

Yes. Shop around for camera exchange stores. If I don't receive an a6000 for Christmas, I'll be trading my D7000 kit in at a store. They said they'd be willing to put £530 towards an a6000 kit (£549.99 RRP) purchased at their shop, for all of my kit (D7000, two lenses and a battery grip), which is a higher price than anywhere else will take all that.

----------

yakapo said:

As of right now, I'm just using jpeg.

Click to expand...

I would try to get into the habit of always shooting RAW. It may mean you have to pick up an extra SD card or two, but it's worth it. If you find you've taken a shot you really, really love but it requires a bit of post editing work, you'll be glad you shot it in RAW. Although JPEGs will probably hold up for most editing work you'd want to do, it's always better and more convenient to have a RAW file on your card than a JPEG.

BTW, you could also consider the Pana LX100. It's one heck of a camera. Apart from the lack of the touchscreen (the Pana implementation of which is just great on the likes of the GM1) it's great. Also, its JPEGs are passable - it's certainly not a RAW-only camera, unlike most non-Fuji / Oly cameras out there. And it has orders of magnitude better-quality video than any Oly cameras. If you ever want to shoot quality video without moire / aliasing, Oly isn't the camera manufacturer to prefer.

compuwar said:

Stabilization is only good for photographer/camera movement, not subject motion, whereas downsampling affects every image you do it to.

Advantage Sony:

Supports 24p video
50% more sensor resolution
More than twice as many AF points
100 more shots per battery charge
Larger sensor
Larger viewfinder
Faster repeated shots
20% smaller
30% lighter
$50 cheaper

Advantage Oly:

In-body stabilization
Nicer screen
GPS

The Sony is a better camera for less money.

Paul

Click to expand...

You are missing the advantage of a larger lense selection on the olympus which is arguably more important than anything else on the camera. Also the larger sensor only has a bearing on cropping capabilities due to the size of the images taken. Also price of the lenses due to stablization being built into the body instead of having to get lenses with stabilization. Actual image quality is similar between the 2.

With the latest firmware release, V 4, our E-M1 bodies now do focus bracketing, focus stacking (that produces a jpg and saves the raw files), silent mode (electronic curtain) and several more goodies. January 6 Olympus will do a product announcement and likely release the new 300mm f4 Pro lens. You can use the 300mm lens with the 1.4 TC for 420mm. That gives the equivalent FOV of 840mm on a 35mm full frame body. In Q1 Leica will announce their 100-400mm f4-6.3 zoom for M43 systems. M43 is looking better all the time.