I tried the Nex 5 briefly during a roadshow and found the manual controls troublesome. If I recall right, I had to go through menus just to change iso, shutter and aperture. So as a more advanced camera, the Nex 5 might not be the best solution. I own a GF1 and the controls are much easier to use.
Sony NEX 5 a micro 43?
- Thread starter tomboy87
- Start date
selamatlzh
Senior Member
Does larger sensor always better IQ ? Looking at dpreview comparison it does not have to be....
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusepl2/page13.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusepl2/page13.asp
george671
New Member
Although the Sony has some neat tricks (panarama...HDR..ETC)...These following detractors keep me from buying one.
A.
non standard (read useless) flash attachment. Try using one in the studio!
B.much larger lenses (read heavy)
I love M4/3!
I love the fact that my M4/3 kit can basically accomplish anything my full blown DSLR's can do!
A.
non standard (read useless) flash attachment. Try using one in the studio!B.
much larger lenses (read heavy)I love M4/3!
I love the fact that my M4/3 kit can basically accomplish anything my full blown DSLR's can do!
Although the Sony has some neat tricks (panarama...HDR..ETC)...These following detractors keep me from buying one.
A.
B.
I love M4/3!
I love the fact that my M4/3 kit can basically accomplish anything my full blown DSLR's can do!
what M4/3 kit are u using now?
Depends on what you are looking for.
The Sony has an aps-c sensor and is capable up to iso3200.
The E-PL2 is capable up to iso1600. That is a 1 stop difference between them.
The drawback on the nex is that there are no fast lenses available.
Hence for lowlight an E-PL2 with the 20mm 1.7 will out perform the nex by about 1 to 2 stops depending on which iso setting u are comparing to.
Bear in mind that the IQ of E-PL2 + 20mm 1.7 at iso800 will be much better than the nex at iso3200 for equiv exposure with regards to dynamic range, noise and details.
If you prefer to zoom most of the time, the nex will be a better choice.
As for bokeh, aps-c will have an upperhand. However due to the limitation of nex lenses (no big aperture lens) Both are quite comparable if lens type are taken into consideration.
The Sony has an aps-c sensor and is capable up to iso3200.
The E-PL2 is capable up to iso1600. That is a 1 stop difference between them.
The drawback on the nex is that there are no fast lenses available.
Hence for lowlight an E-PL2 with the 20mm 1.7 will out perform the nex by about 1 to 2 stops depending on which iso setting u are comparing to.
Bear in mind that the IQ of E-PL2 + 20mm 1.7 at iso800 will be much better than the nex at iso3200 for equiv exposure with regards to dynamic range, noise and details.
If you prefer to zoom most of the time, the nex will be a better choice.
As for bokeh, aps-c will have an upperhand. However due to the limitation of nex lenses (no big aperture lens) Both are quite comparable if lens type are taken into consideration.
nicely put. it's good to look into practical usage than specs alone
do you know how to google?
>>> LINK of search result >>> not that difficult to find images you want <<<
airconvent
Senior Member
Most DSLR use the APS-C sized sensor which is slightly smaller than Fullframe (the diginal equivalent to 35mm film). Sony NEX and Samsung NX also use the same sensor size.
Olympus/Panasonic chose to use a smaller sensor instead called the four-thirds (4/3) standard. Both the m4/3 and 4/3 use the same 4/3 sensor. The difference between m4/3 and 4/3 is the m4/3 does not use a mirror box (mirrorless), i.e. is is not an SLR system, hence it is smaller.
Because the 4/3 sensor is smaller, it can use smaller lenses and a smaller body, so technically if Oly (and Panny too) has taken advantage of this, their cameras can be smaller and thinner than the NEX (which is currently the smallest DSLR-class camera in the world. Forget about panasonic's GF2 advert. They claim to be the smallest DSLR camera with built-in flash. Marketing gimmick).
The reason why the EPL2 is so big is because Oly packed everything including built-in flash and hot shoe etc into the package. NEX on the other hand give you a portable and elegant external flash system that can be removed when not needed. Their included belt strap came with an attached box to keep it which is real cool.
Apart from EPL2/EP2, which I called the "DSLR-lite" or "DSLR-wannabe" class, I think there is scope for Oly to look into an even lower end market "The premium PnS" class where Sony has positioned the NEX. With smaller sensor, they can offer an even smaller body than the NEX. Take out the non-essential stuff like hot shoe, and swivel LCD and what they can provide would be DSLR-like performance in the body of an LX5. This will make sense to all those auntie and uncles who want quality photos from a PnS without the complexity to mess with aperture, iso, etc.
Olympus/Panasonic chose to use a smaller sensor instead called the four-thirds (4/3) standard. Both the m4/3 and 4/3 use the same 4/3 sensor. The difference between m4/3 and 4/3 is the m4/3 does not use a mirror box (mirrorless), i.e. is is not an SLR system, hence it is smaller.
Because the 4/3 sensor is smaller, it can use smaller lenses and a smaller body, so technically if Oly (and Panny too) has taken advantage of this, their cameras can be smaller and thinner than the NEX (which is currently the smallest DSLR-class camera in the world. Forget about panasonic's GF2 advert. They claim to be the smallest DSLR camera with built-in flash. Marketing gimmick).
The reason why the EPL2 is so big is because Oly packed everything including built-in flash and hot shoe etc into the package. NEX on the other hand give you a portable and elegant external flash system that can be removed when not needed. Their included belt strap came with an attached box to keep it which is real cool.
Apart from EPL2/EP2, which I called the "DSLR-lite" or "DSLR-wannabe" class, I think there is scope for Oly to look into an even lower end market "The premium PnS" class where Sony has positioned the NEX. With smaller sensor, they can offer an even smaller body than the NEX. Take out the non-essential stuff like hot shoe, and swivel LCD and what they can provide would be DSLR-like performance in the body of an LX5. This will make sense to all those auntie and uncles who want quality photos from a PnS without the complexity to mess with aperture, iso, etc.
Last edited:
airconvent said:Most DSLR use the APS-C sized sensor which is slightly smaller than Fullframe (the diginal equivalent to 35mm film). Sony NEX and Samsung NX also use the same sensor size.
Olympus/Panasonic chose to use a smaller sensor instead called the four-thirds (4/3) standard. Both the m4/3 and 4/3 use the same 4/3 sensor. The difference between m4/3 and 4/3 is the m4/3 does not use a mirror box (mirrorless), i.e. is is not an SLR system, hence it is smaller.
Because the 4/3 sensor is smaller, it can use smaller lenses and a smaller body, so technically if Oly (and Panny too) has taken advantage of this, their cameras can be smaller and thinner than the NEX (which is currently the smallest DSLR-class camera in the world. Forget about panasonic's GF2 advert. They claim to be the smallest DSLR camera with built-in flash. Marketing gimmick).
The reason why the EPL2 is so big is because Oly packed everything including built-in flash and hot shoe etc into the package. NEX on the other hand give you a portable and elegant external flash system that can be removed when not needed. Their included belt strap came with an attached box to keep it which is real cool.
Apart from EPL2/EP2, which I called the "DSLR-lite" or "DSLR-wannabe" class, I think there is scope for Oly to look into an even lower end market "The premium PnS" class where Sony has positioned the NEX. With smaller sensor, they can offer an even smaller body than the NEX. Take out the non-essential stuff like hot shoe, and swivel LCD and what they can provide would be DSLR-like performance in the body of an LX5. This will make sense to all those auntie and uncles who want quality photos from a PnS without the complexity to mess with aperture, iso, etc.
Not forgetting Olympus has built in body stabilisation which is the only evil cameras that has it, so body will be bigger.
Similar threads
