DxO: Sony A900 vs Olympus E-M10II

Specifically for the discussion of the A-mount DSLR range
Forum rules
No more than three images or three external links allowed in any post or reply. Please trim quotations and do not include images in quotes unless essential.
User avatar
bakubo
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 5539
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:55 am
Location: Japan
Contact:

Re: DxO: Sony A900 vs Olympus E-M10II

Unread postby bakubo » Sat Feb 25, 2017 12:30 am

bakubo wrote:The Olympus E-M5, E-M10, E-M10II, E-P5, etc. that are 16mp have the same Sony sensor. Just very minor tweaks of the sensor and processing along the way, but I imagine DxO would show them pretty much identical. The PEN-F has the newer Sony 20mp sensor. Panasonic, mostly, uses their own Panasonic sensors, but in the last few years they seem to be as good as the Sony sensors used by Olympus. Panasonic also has 16mp and 20mp sensors that are in current use.


The m4/3 E-M5 came out in early 2012 and the FF A900 came out in late 2008, so in only 3.5 years that is amazing progress! The much smaller m4/3 sensor is better in many ways than the much bigger FF sensor. Both are Sony sensors.

By the way, several months ago in another thread I conducted a Turing test on one of the posters that sometimes appears here and it was clear it is a bot (there are troll bots, spam bots, etc.) and not a person. They are easy to spot even without a Turing test. No name, no location, no photos, carefully avoid giving any information that indicates a real person, not starting any threads, contributing pretty much nothing, etc. Only sniping and fanboy posts.

CHOLLY
Oligarch
Posts: 125
Joined: Fri Nov 01, 2013 6:21 pm

Re: DxO: Sony A900 vs Olympus E-M10II

Unread postby CHOLLY » Sat Feb 25, 2017 5:26 am

Bad math.

A900 prototype was developed in 2007. Release to the public was DELAYED... so in effect, it's a 10 year old camera.

M 4/3 in 10 years is equal to 10 year old technology.

BTW, do you even KNOW what the Turing test is? THIS bot thinks not. :lol:

David Kilpatrick
Site Admin
Posts: 6245
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:14 pm
Location: Kelso, Scotland
Contact:

Re: DxO: Sony A900 vs Olympus E-M10II

Unread postby David Kilpatrick » Sun Feb 26, 2017 1:56 pm

We've actually just bought an E-M5 II with 12-40mm and then acquired a well-priced used 75-300mm II Olympus for it. Shirley has now had one cataract operation and is in the queue for what may be both a further cataract operation and corneal graft - which could restore vision to both eyes, 3D again - she has not had 3D vision for 20 years or so now. They may be able to fix it with a special contact lens and cataract op. Whatever the case, her A580 (not sold, but kept) had been the only camera she could use an EVFs did not agree with her pre-cataract op usable eye. Now she can use EVFs. We had the E-M1 MkII to test but I didn't find the sensor very good (I prefer the older 16 megapixel sensor). What was very good indeed was the 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro lens, for which Sony has no E-Mount equivalent, and when a friend decided to sell a little used camera and lens for less than the new prices of that lens, we went for it. First non-Sony camera for a while, apart from a little Fuji zoom camera with GPS.

User avatar
bakubo
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 5539
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:55 am
Location: Japan
Contact:

Re: DxO: Sony A900 vs Olympus E-M10II

Unread postby bakubo » Mon Feb 27, 2017 6:51 am

I keep being tempted to buy the Olympus 75-300mm II. They sell new for only about US$380 here in Japan at the current exchange rate. Much less than in the States. I don't have much use for such a long lens (150-600mm in FF terms), but there are occasional times when it would be good to have and fun to use. The size is quite small. One of these days I will probably just get it and stop thinking about it. :lol:

The new E-M1II has a somewhat different 20mp sensor than the PEN-F. The E-M1II has PDAF on the sensor so that is one difference. Also, I have read, the sensor readout is quite a bit faster and maybe other differences. I am sure for my uses its sensor would be just fine though, as is the PEN-F 20mp sensor and the 16mp sensors in my 3 OM-D bodies. I still use my E-M10II in addition to the PEN-F. While in Sapporo this month I used them both and still like them both.

The E-M5II EVF is quite good and somewhat bigger than the EVFs in all my Olympus bodies. I have, of course, played with it many times at stores here in Japan. The 12-40mm f2.8 is very well liked by people who have it. I have looked at it and slightly considered getting one, but I have most of what I want and, I think, because of its size (not big, but just bigger than what I generally use) I wouldn't use it much even if I had it. :)

I am leaving for a 6 week trip to south India and Sri Lanka next week and I am trying to decide if I will take my travel kit that includes the E-M10II and E-M10 (backup) since they use the same batteries or if I will take the PEN-F and E-M10II (backup) which use different batteries and a different charger. I am leaning to just taking the E-M10II and E-M10 since it simplifies things and won't require me to take so many batteries of 2 types and 2 chargers. That is what I took to north India in late 2015.

User avatar
bfitzgerald
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 3533
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:48 pm

Re: DxO: Sony A900 vs Olympus E-M10II

Unread postby bfitzgerald » Fri Apr 07, 2017 10:37 am

The camera looks interesting for a budget option also some decent lens deals with it at the moment. The A900 is pretty ancient as far as sensor technology goes so no shock it's outclassed with smaller sensors.
Sensors 1" and over seem to be able to deliver what most would call excellent results. Though I noticed a decent improvement with the X10's 2/3" sensor compared to smaller compact ones.

The only area that might bother me is the ISO ratings which are evidently way off over a stop from the stated ones. Most cameras deviate some a fair bit I've rarely seem one exceed the 1 stop mark in all but one case. The Fuji X cameras I tried were a good stop off the A77 so I shot ISO 3200 on the Fuji was really ISO 1600 on the Sony same exposure settings etc. That basically meant the cameras didn't offer better low light performance, they were just skewed to make it appear as if they did. I found that pretty disappointing and it was one reason I dumped X mount. The other was that the lens rendering was geared to sharp but quite ugly bokeh on some lenses, despite some nice tonality it just wasn't to my taste. I will give Oly some credit I have never been unhappy with their lenses even back in ye OM days the ones I tried were very good and that carried over to the 35mm bridge camera I got excellent optics.

For travel shooting I'm sure the micro 4/3 makes a good system and is quite appealing

classiccameras
Viceroy
Posts: 873
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:33 am

Re: DxO: Sony A900 vs Olympus E-M10II

Unread postby classiccameras » Fri Apr 07, 2017 1:43 pm

I still use my 4/3 E body cameras, E-510 and 410, a 14-54 Mik 1 and 11-22 Zuiko lenses, they give out standing colours and performance up to around 800 ISO, but after that forget it. The kit by modern standards is heavy, so I more often than not use my Little EM-10 with my favourite lens a Panny 12-32 F/3.5 mostly for general and landscapes. That lens defies belief, its sharp edge to edge at any aperture and easily beats the Oly M/4/3 kit lens. I'm not interested in lab comparisons and different format comparisons, its the real world pictures that take notice of. My Sony A-37 is great to use plus the few Minolta and Sony lenses I have but it sits in the drawer more so these days as I prefer using the Oly's. I agree about the Fuji X10, it had a great sensor plus a superb zoom lens, but subsequent models moved away from that to the X-Trans sensor which in my opinion was not as good, my X10 is not for sale!

User avatar
bfitzgerald
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 3533
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:48 pm

Re: DxO: Sony A900 vs Olympus E-M10II

Unread postby bfitzgerald » Thu Apr 13, 2017 2:26 pm

I wouldn't find micro 4/3 appealing as a main system myself but I don't doubt others might. X10 is a good camera Fuji are mistaken for dropping the X10 and XS-1 models they could have developed them further their loss though as users will simply buy other products

User avatar
bakubo
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 5539
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:55 am
Location: Japan
Contact:

Re: DxO: Sony A900 vs Olympus E-M10II

Unread postby bakubo » Sat Apr 15, 2017 4:36 am

bakubo wrote:I keep being tempted to buy the Olympus 75-300mm II. They sell new for only about US$380 here in Japan at the current exchange rate. Much less than in the States. I don't have much use for such a long lens (150-600mm in FF terms), but there are occasional times when it would be good to have and fun to use. The size is quite small. One of these days I will probably just get it and stop thinking about it. :lol:


On Tuesday while still in Sri Lanka I asked my wife in Japan to order the lens for me. It was delivered on Wednesday and I got back to Japan on Thursday. Seems pretty good, but I haven't made real use of it yet.

User avatar
bakubo
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 5539
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:55 am
Location: Japan
Contact:

Re: DxO: Sony A900 vs Olympus E-M10II

Unread postby bakubo » Sat Apr 15, 2017 5:57 am

bfitzgerald wrote:The camera looks interesting for a budget option also some decent lens deals with it at the moment. The A900 is pretty ancient as far as sensor technology goes so no shock it's outclassed with smaller sensors.
Sensors 1" and over seem to be able to deliver what most would call excellent results.


viewtopic.php?f=32&t=8925#p98576

bakubo wrote:The m4/3 E-M5 came out in early 2012 and the FF A900 came out in late 2008, so in only 3.5 years that is amazing progress! The much smaller m4/3 sensor is better in many ways than the much bigger FF sensor. Both are Sony sensors.

User avatar
bakubo
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 5539
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:55 am
Location: Japan
Contact:

Re: DxO: Sony A900 vs Olympus E-M10II

Unread postby bakubo » Sat Apr 15, 2017 5:59 am

bfitzgerald wrote:The only area that might bother me is the ISO ratings which are evidently way off over a stop from the stated ones. Most cameras deviate some a fair bit I've rarely seem one exceed the 1 stop mark in all but one case. The Fuji X cameras I tried were a good stop off the A77 so I shot ISO 3200 on the Fuji was really ISO 1600 on the Sony same exposure settings etc. That basically meant the cameras didn't offer better low light performance, they were just skewed to make it appear as if they did. I found that pretty disappointing and it was one reason I dumped X mount. The other was that the lens rendering was geared to sharp but quite ugly bokeh on some lenses, despite some nice tonality it just wasn't to my taste. I will give Oly some credit I have never been unhappy with their lenses even back in ye OM days the ones I tried were very good and that carried over to the 35mm bridge camera I got excellent optics.


viewtopic.php?f=32&t=8243&p=89130#p89130

bakubo wrote:Fuji X-T1

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-t1/16

By our tests, the X-T1's measured sensitivities are around 1/2 - 2/3EV lower than marked, which is unusual for a modern camera. This means that for any given light level, the X-T1 has to use a significantly slower shutter speed, brighter aperture or higher ISO to get an image of the same brightness as an accurately-rated camera.

It's unusual to see this sort of discrepancy and we're disappointed that Fujifilm persists with a system that, while technically compliant with the ISO standard, ends up appearing rather disingenuous.


Olympus E-M10

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m10/12

In our tests we found that measured ISOs from the E-M10 were accurate, meaning ISO 100 indicated is equal to ISO 100 measured.

User avatar
bakubo
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 5539
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:55 am
Location: Japan
Contact:

Re: DxO: Sony A900 vs Olympus E-M10II

Unread postby bakubo » Sat Apr 15, 2017 6:00 am

bfitzgerald wrote:The only area that might bother me is the ISO ratings which are evidently way off over a stop from the stated ones. Most cameras deviate some a fair bit I've rarely seem one exceed the 1 stop mark in all but one case. The Fuji X cameras I tried were a good stop off the A77 so I shot ISO 3200 on the Fuji was really ISO 1600 on the Sony same exposure settings etc. That basically meant the cameras didn't offer better low light performance, they were just skewed to make it appear as if they did. I found that pretty disappointing and it was one reason I dumped X mount. The other was that the lens rendering was geared to sharp but quite ugly bokeh on some lenses, despite some nice tonality it just wasn't to my taste. I will give Oly some credit I have never been unhappy with their lenses even back in ye OM days the ones I tried were very good and that carried over to the 35mm bridge camera I got excellent optics.


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7894#p98846

bakubo wrote:This is worth reading:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4241806072/sense-and-sensitivity

Sensitivity (ISO) in digital imaging seems to be the subject of quite a lot of confusion - it's becoming common to hear talk of manufacturers 'cheating with ISO.' So we thought it made sense look at why sensitivity appears hard to pin down, why we use the definition we do and how it's actually not as complicated as it can sometimes seem.

Awhile back I pulled out my Sony A700 and my E-M5 and shot the same subject in the same light using raw. I was curious to see what the meter would do. I set both to ISO 200 and f2.8:

A700: 1/20
E-M5: 1/25

I shot another subject using ISO 200 and f4:

A700: 1/160
E-M5: 1/160

I looked at the resulting photos and they seemed to be the same. DxO says at ISO 200 the A700 is 150 and the E-M5 is 107 and yet the meters resulted in the same exposures. From a practical standpoint it doesn't seem to make any difference what is happening inside the bowels of the camera as long as the exposures for a given light level and ISO are the same among various cameras. I am talking about from a photographer's perspective.

As long as the results look good to me and I get exposures that I expect for a given ISO then I am okay. So, you can compare photos from various cameras set to a particular ISO and know that you are seeing what they do at that ISO.

I recently tried something else. I used my E-M5 and G3 with the 20mm f1.7 to take a photo. I set both to ISO 400 and f2 and took the same photo using raw.

G3: 1/20
E-M5: 1/25

DxO says at ISO 400 the G3 is 372 and the E-M5 is 214 and yet the meters resulted in almost the same exposures. Both of the photos look to be exposed the same when I open them in LR.

Barry, this time rather than disappearing how about going into some detail explaining exactly what you mean and what the practical results are for photographers? If there is something then I would like to know so that I can adjust my thinking on this issue. Thank you in advance.

Yes, the E-M1 is rather expensive and I am not interested in it. The improvements compared to my E-M5 are not enough to make me care and the increase in size/weight makes it definitely less interesting. If it doesn't sell then I suspect Olympus will lower the price. If it does sell then the price is probably okay.


viewtopic.php?f=32&t=7088&p=98843#p98843

bakubo wrote:These are interesting articles for people who want to understand this stuff better:

RAW is not Raw

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/10/raw-is-not-raw.html

Why ISO Isn't ISO

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/09/why-iso-isnt-iso.html

Sense and Sensitivity

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4241806072/sense-and-sensitivity

Sensitivity (ISO) in digital imaging seems to be the subject of quite a lot of confusion - it's becoming common to hear talk of manufacturers 'cheating with ISO.' So we thought it made sense look at why sensitivity appears hard to pin down, why we use the definition we do and how it's actually not as complicated as it can sometimes seem.


bfitzgerald wrote:For travel shooting I'm sure the micro 4/3 makes a good system and is quite appealing


Yes, for travel or for anyone who values smaller size/weight with still good results then m4/3 is pretty good.


Return to “Alpha A-mount System”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests