Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Olympus OM-D E-M10 or Sony A6000?

jinyoungkim7

jinyoungkim7

macrumors regular
Original poster
Apr 14, 2010
119
8
Maryland, USA
Hey guys,

I'm trying to decide between these two mirror less cameras that have recently been announced. I'll be buying the camera mid-april and I was wondering which camera you guys would buy. I'm a beginner photographer so I thought I'd ask reddit.

Both seem to be at the exact same price point. The A6000 seems to have better specs while the E-M10 is a metal body... I'm not sure which one to get... I'm not going into photography with the mindset of having it become a huge hobby. More for just taking photos when I go out or travel. I'll most likely buy 1-3 lenses besides the kit so the broader range of lenses in the microfourthirds ecosystem doesn't mean all that much to me.

Thank you!!
 
Last edited:
Stick with micro four thirds for now. Both the bodies and compariable lenses are cheaper, smaller, lighter. Olympus and Panasonic are the two main M43 vendors.
 
jinyoungkim7 said:
Both seem to be at the exact same price point. The A6000 seems to have better specs while the E-M10 is a metal body... I'm not sure which one to get... I'm not going into photography with the mindset of having it become a huge hobby. More for just taking photos when I go out or travel. I'll most likely buy 1-3 lenses besides the kit so the broader range of lenses in the microfourthirds ecosystem doesn't mean all that much to me.

Thank you!!
Click to expand...

Personally, of the two, I'd go with the Sony. If you're not really looking to get serious, I doubt it'll make much difference overall though. In my book, a larger sensor is always a better thing, so that's what I'd base my choice on, but then I like big prints and the ability to heavily crop when I don't have enough reach.

Paul
 
I faced a similar decision 2 years ago and decided to go with a Sony Nex-7. I have not regretted the decision. It's been a great camera.
 
Tough choice

Tough choice - both excellent cameras, and it's unlikely you'd be disappointed with either one.

The Sony has got the bigger sensor, but the pixel size is almost identical (the Sony pixel size is 1.04 x the Olympus pixel size), so low-light capabilities should be very similar.

You'll be able to get larger prints from the Sony, and crop more if necessary, but the file sizes will be considerably larger. If disk space and/or your likelihood to do much post-processing are important, then these factors are considerations.

You mentioned that you weren't intending on making photography a major hobby. Either one of these cameras could change your mind on that, but if you want a camera for taking out and about, then I would say one of your biggest considerations is how it feels in your hands. Go to a shop and spend some time handling both these cameras. Try and familiarise yourself with the controls you'll use the most.

You'll get a lot of 'high-end' and perhaps less relevant advice on this thread from people who are very serious about their photography. Photography is a major hobby for me too (and a source of occasional petty cash), but my personal advice for you is that you need a camera that makes you want to pick it up every time you head out of the house. The Sony is a very compact number, although either will sit easily in a small backpack.

I currently have an Olympus and a good friend of mine has a Sony, both of which bear a similar comparison to your 2 choices. Both excellent cameras, but we each prefer our own just because they're right for us.

I know that's not helping your decision, but the point I'm making is that either of your choices is excellent, but it has to be the right one for you, and you can only know that by getting your hands on them.
 
BTW, M43 raw files contain the correction needed for the lens. So you will not see Olympus and Panasonic 43 lenses listed in Lightroom or ACR. No need for a discreet listing and profile file when when correction info is part of each raw file.
 
I have a Sony NEX 6 (which the A6000 is replacing), and I've been totally happy with it. But Olympus owners love their cameras, too. As others have said, for your purposes, you'd be fine with either camera. The primary advantage of the Micro Four Thirds format is lens selection -- which is important only if you plan to buy a lot of lenses, of if you know you'll need certain specialty lenses. If you only plan to buy a few, then Sony has the bases covered. Good lenses are expensive, as I'm sure you've discovered.

By the way, Best Buy currently has the NEX 6 on sale for $600 with the 16-50 mm kit lens. I paid $800 last November, which was a drop from the previous $1,100 price. The A6000 with lens will be priced at $800. If you're on a tight budget, which I believe you mentioned you are in another post, then the NEX 6 is a great deal. Yes, the A6000 is the latest and greatest... and will be until the A6100 or whatever comes out in another year or two. :)
 
In terms of camera choice I don't think you can lose – both are good choices.

MCAsan said:
You might want to check out the open spec and many of the M43 products available. You can reuse lens from the order Four Thirds days with an adapter. Some of those can be a bargain.

http://www.four-thirds.org/en/microft/
Click to expand...

E-Mount (used by the A6000 is also an open spec. Neither system is more open/closed than the other.

You can also reuse many old lens with E-Mount as well.

MCAsan said:
Stick with micro four thirds for now. Both the bodies and compariable lenses are cheaper, smaller, lighter. Olympus and Panasonic are the two main M43 vendors.
Click to expand...

In truth the lenses are slightly large (due to the APS-C sensor), but the bodies are about the same size and weight (from the excellent camerasize.com):

  • Sony Alpha a6000 is 1% (0.9 mm) wider and 19% (15.4 mm) shorter than Olympus OM-D E-M10.
  • Sony Alpha a6000 is 2% (0.8 mm) thinner than Olympus OM-D E-M10.
  • Sony Alpha a6000 [344 g] weights 14% (56 grams) less than Olympus OM-D E-M10 [400 g] (*inc. batteries and memory card).
 
The Sony seems to base at ISO 100, while the Olympus does so at ISO 200- having the base at 100 will help a lot when you're shooting in bright sunlight.

The resolution is almost 16MP for the Olympus vs 24MP for the Sony. That means that photographically, you can throw out 30% of the Sony's image and get an equivalent image- that's a lot of room to crop out things if you need to.

The Sony also has a higher frame rate if you're shooting action and want to try to capture an instant- 11fps vs 8fps and twice as many frames per second shooting video- 60 vs 30.

Paul
 
I have the Olympus OMD EM5. I would likely go with the Sony. Lately I have be eying some on the Sony's. Pretty impressive especially the A7. Sony seems to be on the cutting edge technology. Be sure the available lens will meet your needs. Sony lens choices are not as robust as M43- the main reason I went with with the Em5.
 
I wonder if, when the A6000 releases, will it drive down prices of the EM1 and EM5?

Perhaps even the XT1 will do the same. I bet come April you will have a bunch of new questions.
 
epic-retouching said:
I wonder if, when the A6000 releases, will it drive down prices of the EM1 and EM5?

Perhaps even the XT1 will do the same. I bet come April you will have a bunch of new questions.
Click to expand...

Not likely Sony impacts Olympus as those are two different types of cameras. There are several different types of mirror less cameras:

Point and shoot...many companies make them

35 mm full frame sensor such as Sony A7 and A7R

35 mm cropped APC size sensor such as Sony NEX, Canon M, Fuji X ...etc.

Micro four thirds (which is not cropped down 35mm) with bodies from Olympus and Panasonic. Evidently Kodiak will return to photography with their M43 body the SL-1 later this year.
 
jinyoungkim7 said:
Hey guys,

I'm trying to decide between these two mirror less cameras that have recently been announced. I'll be buying the camera mid-april and I was wondering which camera you guys would buy. I'm a beginner photographer so I thought I'd ask reddit.

Both seem to be at the exact same price point. The A6000 seems to have better specs while the E-M10 is a metal body... I'm not sure which one to get... I'm not going into photography with the mindset of having it become a huge hobby. More for just taking photos when I go out or travel. I'll most likely buy 1-3 lenses besides the kit so the broader range of lenses in the microfourthirds ecosystem doesn't mean all that much to me.
Click to expand...

Go try them out. Hand feel will be pretty important for casual shooting. The a6000 only has one control wheel, which is a deal-breaker for me. As a new shooter, you might not mind so much. While you're at the store trying these cameras out, you should try out a Panasonic GX-7 (also MFT), which is a bit more expensive, but is styled more like the Sony.

The a6000 is higher resolution, which will provide additional crop-ability if you intend to print. Keep in mind that a 15" retina display is a little more than 5MP, an 8x10 print is about 7.2MP, just to calibrate your expectation. The a6000 has phase-detect autofocus, which means it's going to do much better at continuous autofocus -- great if you're shooting sports or active toddlers.

On the Olympus side, you'd get 3.5 stops of in-body image stabilization, which works out to about a 10x improvement in low-light capability (you can get away with 1/10 the shutter speed on the Olympus you'd need on the Sony). The MFT lenses, in addition to more variety, are smaller and, in general, have better optics than the Sony lenses.

All this said, these days it's pretty hard to buy a bad camera, so mostly I would stick with what feels good to you and what you think you'd carry with you and shoot.
 
None of these are a bad choice.

That said, I'd go with the Sony. The price is roughly the same. The size is very similar, the advantage for m43 is with having smaller high quality fast zooms. The primes and kit zooms are actually quite similar in size.

Oddly enough, the price of the lenses is also roughly the same. Apart from a kit zoom, the next lens you'll probably want is a standard prime. It's a very versatile focal length and having it in a prime format means you have a small, super sharp lens that lets in a lot of light (good for night shots or shallow depth of field look). Quickly looking at what's available, Sony's 35mm f/1.8 is 450$, Olympus' 25mm f1.4 is 400$ and Panasonic/Leica's 25mm f/1.4 is 550$. Sony's portrait prime, 50mm f/1.8 seems to be 100$ less than anything comparable in m43.

The major difference is sensor size. I really like APS-C as a sensor size. The sensor is larger than m43 so you get better low light performance, better detail and the ability to shoot with a shallow depth of field.

As for camera specific features, the Olympus has two control dials as opposed to the Sony's single one. Some people will much prefer the two button control, but depending on the button layout, having a single one isn't always that bad (you press a button while turning the dial to change its function). The Olympus has a touchscreen, if you're into that, it can be useful to select where to focus. The Olympus has built in image stabilization, but it doesn't seem to be as good the top of the line from Olympus. On the other hand, most Sony lenses have built in image stabilization. The Sony has a slightly faster burst rate, but the Olympus is no slouch. I think the Sony will also focus a bit faster.


That's my take on it. I'd much rather use the Sony for it's larger sensor than the Olympus. The Sony doesn't sacrifice on size to give you the advantages of the larger sensor.
 
I would say MFT over E-mount. Seems the consensus if that unless your spending Otus-type money the quality of Sony's glass is a bit average.

MFT has been around for a while now and there's a stack of lenses to choose from (http://www.four-thirds.org/en/microft/lense.html). I don't know the particulars, but apparently it's also the best system for adapted lenses, so if you like something from Leica/Minolta/Nikon/Canon it doesn't take much or behave strangely.

As mentioned above, having IBIS is handy. Also reduces the cost of lenses as they don't need to incorporate OIS. And one thing I like about the Olympus output of recent is that noise looks more like film grain at higher ISOs rather than fluorescent speckle.

Great forum to visit is http://www.mu-43.com/, where you can judge the quality of various body and lens combination (which would likely be a better indicator than numbers on paper).
 
paolo- said:
The major difference is sensor size. I really like APS-C as a sensor size. The sensor is larger than m43 so you get better low light performance, better detail and the ability to shoot with a shallow depth of field.
Click to expand...

Correct apart from the low-light capabilities - if you check the two sensors, the pixel size comes out pretty much identical.

Here's an example of the Olympus low-light capability (and image stabilisation).

Hand-held, 17mm, 1/6 sec, f/2.5, ISO200 (yes, you read that right, ISO200)



Brighton Wheel by Parkin Pig, on Flickr
 
compuwar said:
Yes, but given the higher number of pixels on the Sony, the image can be downsampled by a larger degree, which effectively reduces the noise.
Click to expand...

The Olympus has 3.5 stops of stabilization built into the body.
 
Took the wife to the camera store to see an EM-1 and 12-40. The wife was hooked. So I ordered her a set that will hopefully be here for her birthday next Wednesday. BTW, I got $200 off at B&H (and no sales tax) on Olympus rebates that run through early April.

Once her set get in and she is happy, we will begin to inventory and sell off her Canon stuff. That will more than pay for a top M43 kit for her. It is much better to have a M43 kit you can take with you and use.....than 40 pounds of equipment laying in the floor.

For us this is just one transition in photography. My SLR was a Minolta SRT102 wit 50mm 1.2 lens. The wife's from 35mm was a Canon Canonet rangefinder.

For us this is a happy time.

“Second star to the right and straight on 'til morning. ”
 
Where's the OP?

There's a lot of people here giving their time and advice to the OP, yet the OP doesn't seem to be taking an interest.

Probably worth noting that this is the third thread in just over a week that the OP has started asking for buying advice on cameras.
 
FWRLCK said:
The Olympus has 3.5 stops of stabilization built into the body.
Click to expand...

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
 
Parkin Pig said:
There's a lot of people here giving their time and advice to the OP, yet the OP doesn't seem to be taking an interest.

Probably worth noting that this is the third thread in just over a week that the OP has started asking for buying advice on cameras.
Click to expand...

Hey,

I am taking notice and I very much appreciate everyone's advice. I posted the question 2 days ago and I've had so many exams and projects this week that I haven't really had the time to respond but I have been looking at every single post and thinking.

The reason I've asked camera buying questions 2-3 times in this forum is simply because I've been flip-flopping and not being able to make up my mind... From DSLR vs. Mirrorless to t5i vs. A6000 to OMD-EM10 vs. A6000... I'm a pretty indecisive person. Regardless, I've narrowed it down to the E-M10 or the A6000 and between those two it's so incredibly hard to pick one. I can't really test the ergonomics of each since none of the camera stores around me have the E-M10 on display and the A6000 isn't out.

Here are some of the questions I still have:

- If I only plan on buying 2-3 nice lens, maybe one prime and one zoom, will the A6000 be better since I won't need the huge variety seen in M43 system? From what I have figured out it doesn't seem there is a HUGE difference in price and quality between Sony's affordable good lens vs. M43s. (NOT talking about Zeiss lens)

- Which would work better in low light situations? (I assume outside of low light conditions it would be hard to tell the IQ between the two cameras on any lens on a computer screen)

- From what I hear Sony is now focusing on the Full-frame lens, should I be worried at all about the future of the APS-C E mount lens or in terms of "future proofing" by buying into APS-C cameras of Sony?

- Any other advice between the two cameras.

PS - I'm sorry that it seemed like I have been ignoring everyone's advice. I've been taking everything in, just haven't had the time to respond to the thread.

Thank you!!
 
FWRLCK said:
The Olympus has 3.5 stops of stabilization built into the body.
Click to expand...

Won't most of the Sony lens I'll be buying have stabilization built in anyways? For example the Sony SEL35F18 35mm f/1.8 Prime Fixed Lens? (From what I understand one of the best prime lens at an affordable price) I read from somewhere that M43 equivalent prime lens that's near the quality of this is $400. The 35mm Sony is only $50 more.
 
jinyoungkim7 said:
Won't most of the Sony lens I'll be buying have stabilization built in anyways? For example the Sony SEL35F18 35mm f/1.8 Prime Fixed Lens? (From what I understand one of the best prime lens at an affordable price) I read from somewhere that M43 equivalent prime lens that's near the quality of this is $400. The 35mm Sony is only $50 more.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if all the lenses you want provide stabilization and are acceptably sharp for your uses, then there isn't any reason to prefer in-body stabilization.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back