Olympus E-5 vs Nikon D3s test


At Omuser.com you can see the Olympus E-5 vs Nikon D3s shootout. You can see the image comparison on page 5 (Click here). The text is in chinese but that should not be a problem:

Look at the following samples:

ISO 200 (Click on image to enlarge)

Nikon D3s

Olympus E-5

Not bad at all! And consider the price difference …the Nikon costs $5100!

Digitalkamera.de posted a new Olzmpus E-5 review (Click here to read the google english translation). Also in that case the reviewers is enthusiast about the camera performance. The only complain is the high price.

Olympus E-5 direct shop links:
Amazon US, BHphoto, Adorama, Amazon Deutschland.

  • LOL… its abit of an unfair comparison….

    Testing on the strengths of the Olympus.
    Of course the e-5 will screw the D3s..

    • KJS

      Yea, I almost agree… testing a killer camera like the D3s against the lowly E-5 is how you should have said it was unfair :P I’m so glad I bought an E-5 :D looking forward to taking a ton of photos with it!

      As much as I like my e-5 and hearing about it’s greatness… I have a feeling that this may be more about the glass or focusing. Everyone knows that it’s easier to get a great piece of glass with Oly starting with HG series… it isn’t as readily available to nikon… from samples that I’ve seen, nikkor glass tends to be on the soft side, but in it’s defense, I have seen some very crisp photos with it as well.

      I’m perfectly satisfied with knowing that I’m getting the best per pixel resolution that I can for what I paid at an ISO that I plan to use as much as possible. Never bought into it wishing that I could have awesome high iso shooting. That it holds its own to a camera like that in some aspect, that’s awesome!

  • Leave a reply


  • Why is the Nikon shot out of focus?

    • It could be that the DOF is shallower. It’s FF vs. 43 after all.

      • KJS

        I believe they were shot at f8… that shouldn’t be shallow for either, should it? I would go with focusing issue. Or maybe camera shake? Google translate isn’t working for me, but it looks like a pretty slow shutter speed.

    • juavel

      I´m with you, it´s obvious in this site there is too much rookie, fanboysm (camera brands understood as a football team) and very little cold minded criticism.

      For a fair body comparison one needs:

      – To know lens model, looks like it was the 12-60 vs a nikon 24-70.
      – To know aperture used and DOF of the system, the apertures should perform similar in both lenses and give more than enough DOF to cover the scene.
      – The focus must be perfect, it´s not the case.
      – Mirror lookup and a proper tripod.
      – The DR should exceed both sensor abilities.

      I will copy-paste a little:

      “Not bad at all! And consider the price difference …the Nikon costs $5100!

      Digitalkamera.de posted a new Olzmpus E-5 review (Click here to read the google english translation). Also in that case the reviewers is enthusiast about the camera performance. The only complain is the high price.

      Olympus E-5 direct shop links:
      Amazon US, BHphoto, Adorama, Amazon Deutschland.”

      So the article writer here throws two pictures that doesn´t state conditions of the test and lenses(just ISO 200 and camera) with an image of the competence out of focus, followed by:

      -A comment that the price difference is high.
      -A review where the camera is praised, where the only complain is the high price (but hey, as we said the Nikon cost much more)
      -Links to buy the E5.

      It´s obvious that this site criticism to olympus is zero, just the opposite, provided that and the fact that this site is having tons of buying links and news (I don´t see how constantly linking buying places fit to a rumors site) if olympus-panasonic are not paying this site owner/s they definetely should, too much dedication for being not paid and too much traffic to don´t have a single advertising.

  • CRB

    Whats the point of comparing iso200 images with no challenging DR at all? are these jpges or raws? why not to compare high DR scenes and high iso at raw?btw the site is taking forever to load….

    • Torstein

      The resolving power looks greater in the E-5 picture, than the one from 300s. And that is a point in itself, its other factors in a photograph than DR….

      (I have no idea how this comparison is done, so it is of limited value to me…)

      • CRB

        Torstein….i agree, but thats not the problem….i dont think Oly has problems for resolving power(even with other models)….the main achilles heel from Oly is the noise above iso 1000 and the lack of DR…so thats what is supposed to be evaluated….

        • Torstein

          Actually noice, ISO and resolution is closely linked. With more details you can use more aggresive noice reduction.

    • bilgy_no1

      True, at much higher ISO the D3s looks much better. But at least until ISO800 they look quite similar (if you look at the samples after the link).

  • MikeS

    Simply comparing the two at low ISO completely misses the point of the D3S. When looking at their high ISO samples, the difference becomes clear (ISO 6400 on the E-5 is matched by ISO 25600 on the D3S), especially since the D3S can achieve insanely high ISOs that the E-5 cannot.

  • nugat

    I compared the E5 to D3x. The resolution is similar.


    • CRB

      i hope you are kidding…

      • Daemonius

        Actually, if you base things only around real resolution (lp/mm), for example GH1 has more resolution power than D3X or A900. :D Funny right?

        Its what weak AA filter do, when you remove it completely like in Leica M9, you get pretty crazy real resolution.

        On opposite side, if you do things like Canon in for example 5DMK2, you get quite a less details and real resolution, than one would expect from 21mpix FF.

        D3s and D3x has quite conservative AA filters, so resolution is “normal”, while E-5 has either very weak AA (I saw moiré quite often in E-5 samples), or it has some build-in sharpening.

  • elliot

    The D3s offers the best high ISO capability of any camera on the market today. That is its selling point. For you to ignore that and simply compare at base ISO is like comparing a Hyundai to a Ferrari based on gas mileage. This makes the comparison silly and uninformed.

    It’s been very well known since the D3s came out that ordinary APS-C cameras match it as base ISO.

    Here’s the D3s vs. the D300s:


    But let’s see the E-5 at ISO 3200, 6400, 12800:


    More, dpreview and others have noted the D3s’s excellent metering and autofocus (including next-gen 3D AF-tracking), customizable user interface, and the quality and malleability of the 14-bit RAW files, not to mention general Nikon advantages like the best flash system on a DSLR or the quality and depth of its lens bullpen.

    Regardless of how good the E-5 might be on its own, comparisons like this have the odor of slight desperation, where any similarities in limited ways to a more expensive camera get touted somehow as a ‘win.’ It’s just as silly as someone with a low-end Nikon and a 50mm f/1.8 showing how similar results on a static subject can be to a Leica that costs 10x as much. Useless.

    • Darren

      You Nikon fanboi can go elsewhere and preach your superior faith. This is a sub $2000 camera vs a $5000 camera, and the cheaper one surely holds quite well. This information is useful for many, and if it’s useless for you, that’s fine.

      • elliot

        Darren I am a regular here and I own m43 gear. Unlike you I am not a blind fanboy. your price comparison underscores my original point, which you apparently did not read. :(

    • Jason

      @Elliot, you are obviously being ignorant, because if you click the link you will see that the site did in fact compare both cameras, all the way up to 6400 ISO in fact. This pretty much makes your statement moot and unreliable. Think before you speak.

      • the other Rob

        How is he being ignorant? he is not disagreeing with the results, he is just saying that the comparison is pointless. The same test will probably show how great and E500 is compared to E5 at 1/10 the cost.

        • Jason

          @ the other Rob – simple just read his statement here which says the comparison is only done at base ISO – you’ve clearly missed this fact as well – below is the quote:

          “For you to ignore that and simply compare at base ISO is like comparing a Hyundai to a Ferrari based on gas mileage. This makes the comparison silly and uninformed.”

          The comparison doesn’t simply compare base ISO shots, it actually compares all the way up to 6400 ISO – I repeat is does not only compare base ISO – which is contrary to what both of you are using as the premise and basis of your argument. Therefore, I’m calling your arguments baseless. Ok?

  • Jón

    *every* DSLR today will deliver fantastic photos. It’s more about lenses/specific preferences these days…

  • Gene

    Haha! Zuiko beats Nikkor!

    • KJS

      I think it’s great that I can get such great performance at low iso shooting. Considering that I shoot primarily under 400iso anyways, it’s good to know that a $1700 body can hold it’s own to a $5k+ body!

  • Ab

    What i find interesting is that up to iso1600 the differences in print would be non existent except at large magnifications.

    That is my take on it anyway.

  • I reminds me of the rumors about the E-5 months ago. IQ will be on par if not better than the D300s. But now look at what the E-5 can do.

    I just with it looked something like this http://www.ephotozine.com/articles/Images-of-Olympus-E1-replacement-3465/images/olympusE2frontLRG.jpg with more buttons, dials, and swivel lcd.

    • I mean “I just wish” not “with”

  • nugat

    Camera/lens resolutions tests are always at native ISO, with best lens and at optimal aperture for each combo. To see E5/Zuiko at par with FF 24Mpix machines is interesting. Go to Dpreview for D3x full review and see for yourself.
    I also tested my D700 vs E5 and the high ISO advantage of FF of 2 stops is there. Horses for courses.

  • Chris

    You know… maybe not everyone needs a high ISO camera? Maybe some of us are landscape or studio photographers, who use good technique, tripods, and/or strobes and hot lights for our photographs. Maybe some of us aren’t sports shooters or wedding photographers and don’t need an insane amount of frames per second bursts or a usable 12800 ISO?

    If that’s the case, and the E-5 has comparable image quality up to ISO 800, then it makes sense for us to get an E-5 instead of spending more money and lugging around more weight than is needed with the D3s.

    • the other Rob

      Finally a good answer. Yes, its a perfect camera if it suits your needs and does many things very well.

    • Mark

      You know… if low ISO performance is your benchmark, then a Canon Rebel or Pentax K-x wouldn’t be a poor choice, either. Yet, I don’t see anyone here complaining that the E-5 is too expensive for the minor improvement in image quality over entry-level cameras at base ISO, which is good, because that would be missing the point of why the E-5 is such a good camera.

      By the same token, the D3S costs what it does for a good reason, regardless of whether its headline features don’t apply to the average photographer; the average photographer is not a pro that would make full use of its full capabilities.

      • Ross

        The price per image quality is not the point to consider above the low end models like the EPL-1, it’s the rugged weather sealing & full features, customisablilty etc that a pro needs that gives it its value. Sure you can put a 35-100 f2 lens on the EPL-1 with an adapter, but lets get serious, that is not what you would want to do (for the sake of focus speed alone) except to test it or just for the fun of it if you have that lens. Just think, as you stand next to a D3s user at an event with their big lens & you front up with your EPL-1 with that lens, it’d be good for a chuckle & would take really nice images so long as focus speed wasn’t an issue, but you wouldn’t seriously do that normally.

  • Neonart

    I think if we compare this to cars, I’d compare it to a Genesis Coupe vs a Skyline GT-R (about 3-3.5x the cost). On a small roadcoarse, sprited city driving, or casual driving the Ganesis does really well for a fraction of the cost. Once you put them on Road Atlanta or the Nurburgring it’s no contest. The GT-R flexes it’s muscles and it’s Game Over.
    Same with these cameras. The fact is that for everyday shooting and normal pro shooting, the E5 can hang with big guns like the D3s. But, if you compare them at extreme ISOs and FPS, where the D3s was designed to compete, the results are going to be obious. That’s like saying compare the Hyudai to the Nissan on the top end! To 195mph! That’s not reasonable because you pay extra for that performace.
    But it’s great to know that for many people who don’t have the need, or the funds, for a D3s (or a GT-R) you can get plenty of enjoyment and excellent results from an E3 (or a Genesis Coupe) for 1/3 the cost.

    • Henrik

      As you stated in your last line, how many does actually have the needs for an GT-R in thier life? ;D Not many would be able to use its power fully :).

  • Jason

    I don’t care for Canon, but I do like the FF Nikons, and even the D7000 – but for what I do, which would rarely include going over 400-800 ISO, the E-5 is actually perfect, and the fact that there is an affordable selection of good lenses to go with the affordably priced body, is just icing on the cake.

    Regardless of what any of the haters say, this camera is a clear winner. It competes with a FF to some extent, and that means a lot. An E-620 is not going to produce anywhere near this kind of quality and that is proof that the E-5 is a serious improvement.

    • the other Rob

      Why does it mean a lot if it competes with FF? piece of mind?

      • Jason

        Better quality image and a higher probability of getting good shots. Why would you pay $5,000 to get a pro body, or $1,700 – same reason I assume – to get the best quality from the given system. It just happens that the Olympus produces comparable quality at 1600 ISO and below, therefore I can get amazing results without spending $5,000.

        Isn’t this obvious….

      • Ross

        It means you have a better chance of getting work instead of being sneared at by the Canikon snobs.

  • Paulus

    At ISO 200 the Olympus E-5 is the stage winner !!!

    A picture is worth a thousand words!

    Well done Olympus!

    • Jason

      It’s not about being better than the Nikon D3, it is about being as close in quality to the benchmark camera in the pro category. Even if the Oly is not better, it is the closest it has ever been to matching up against this formidable competitor.

      And for those of you who say all DSLRs produce the same results in certain conditions are obviously foolish. If I shoot the E-620 in the same E-5 and D3 comparison, I can assure you the E-620 will get crushed by both – do you disagree? I have seen comparisons between the E-5, 5D MkII and E-620 too. The results: D3, 5D and E-5 all produce excellent results, and in that order. Not saying the E-5 is better, it is clearly the best competitor Olympus has ever made.

  • Did you check the real forum thread?

    I was pretty excited about these test photos. Alas they’re not fully comparable.

    If you check the exif infos from the photos, the shutter speeds doesn’t match between the ISOs and the Cameras.

    Nikon underexposes the photo a bit compared to Oly E5. The tests should’ve been made with full manual program instead of Aperture priority program. This way they could’ve get fully comparable results.

    So the photos shows that Oly E-5 is comparable to up to ISO1600 with Nikon if Oly gets a bit more light (1/20 s compared to 1/30).

    Dpreview, I’m still waiting your E-5 tests!

  • Brandon Smoot

    If you think this comparison is revealing then you do not grasp the current state of digital. Shooting in ideal conditions and low ISO (like this) not only will the E-5 compare, but all DSLRs of the past few years will be nearly indistinguishable. Indeed, without pixel-peeping, when shooting an image that does not challenge DR, aside from DOF and lens-distortion even the better compacts are nearly indistinguishable from the DSLR flagships. The photographic community has been painfully slow to realize this, but if all you shoot is technically unchallenging you DO NOT NEED a high-end DSLR. The benefits of such cameras are diminsihing benefits in extreme situations [all for ever-increasing cost] and user-interface: ergonomics, screen, speed, controls, larger OVF (soon to be obsolete via the inevitable EVF revolution). That’s it.

    Take this test. Sub the E5 for virtually any other camera on the market. Same result. This shows nothing about the E5 and repeats everything about where we are at technologically.

    • Jason

      Sub the camera for an Olympus E-450 and the results will not be the same, nor will they be the same with many of the Canon and Nikon APS-C bodies.

      The E-5 will beat out any DSLR under $1,700 – up to 1600 ISO or so….

      Only cameras capable of out resolving an E-5 with HG and SHG lenses, are full-frame cameras…. and image tests consistently prove this…

  • e_dawg

    What’s with all the ISO comparison testing of cameras all over the web using JPEGs? What’s the point? All they’re testing is how good the NR algorithms are and how aggressive the default JPEG processing settings are.

    Although i know a lot of people shoot JPEGs, this testing is not representative for RAW shooters. Get the RAW files and put them through a standard RAW converter like ACR 6.x and then we’ll see how good the raw output from the sensor is without the in-camera NR and JPEG processing confounding the issue.

    • > Although i know a lot of people shoot JPEGs, this testing is not representative for RAW shooters.

      Different RAWs produce different results in the same converters.

      I understand your sentiment, but to me personally OOC JPEG tests are the tests which I can try to reproduce myself after buying camera/lens. Reproducibility for tests is paramount (ask any tester). E.g. many tried but very few succeeded in reproducing RAW test results of DPReview.

    • Ross

      I don’t believe RAW images from Canon cameras are straight unprocessed files but have had some processing before you get them. To get low noise images out of 18MP sensors at high ISO that Canon are using, it would not be pretty without some processing.

      • e_dawg

        You guys are both right too, but if i could add some comments…

        Ross: All RAW files already have NR applied at the sensor level. But it is a more consistent and objective application of NR where the sensor manufacturer (usually either Sony or Canon) optimizes NR vs resolution with the technology at hand.

        Furthermore, Sony supplies the same sensor to various models from different camera brands, so there is a consistency that you don’t see when camera companies all tweak their JPEG engines differently. e.g., D300 = A700; D5000 = D90 = D300s = K-x = A500 in terms of RAW file quality, but Sony’s JPEG processing is a generation behind Nikon’s so the A700 is significantly behind the D300 for JPEG, and the A500 is behind everyone else, although the gap has closed.

        Dummy0000117: Unfortunately, as you say, RAW conversion quality is not truly identical for different RAWs processed through the same converter, but the differences are a lot smaller than what you will find when you compare OoC JPEGs between different cameras. Recent improvements in RAW conversion in ACR 6.x and LR 3.x, for example, address the quality gaps that existed before (Sony RAW conversion quality in ACR 4.x, for example) to where you’re essentially getting maximum quality from RAW files across all manufacturers.

        Speaking of what’s important to testing and experimental design, a fundamental principle is to have controls and to keep as many variables the same except for the one that you’re trying to test. When you test OoC JPEGs, there are NO controls there, and the variances in in-camera processing and mfr default settings are different across the board.

        The variations in OoC JPEGs becomes much more significant when you compare cameras across generations. JPEG processing and NR algorithms improve every year, but cameras are stuck with whatever processing they had at the time they were developed.

        A prime example is the vast improvement in the NR of Olympus JPEGs over the years. People think that the E-P1 and E-PL1 (and now the E-5) are so much better than the E-3 and E-30 at high ISO. But run the RAW files through LR 3, and you find that the RAW file quality is all the same.

        Testing IQ using RAW files still has its flaws or inconsistencies, but my point is that there are a lot fewer inconsistencies, and you take the rapid development in NR/JPEG processing technology in newer cameras out of the equation.

    • Brandon Smoot

      Reread what I wrote. Outresolving in this sense means pixel-peeping. Real-world use in virtually every professional application–print, even high-gloss photo-magazine, even large gallery-prints, is realistically indistinguishable.

      That sports-camera makes all the difference–because you actually got the shot in the first place. Ditto that ‘owl’ set-up. Ditto that tele set-up. Ditto that ultrawide, that tilt/shift, that DOF-control…

      But if the material is not challenging, none of these apply. And what can manage the shot effectively becomes…any camera on the market, from any system, from the past few years.

  • FAKE FAKE FAKE!!!!!!!! Depends the Lens asd the Configure. OLYMPUS is BED, SLOW and Sub-Professional :( I speak this becouse i HAVE a Oly E-3 and after i bought a Canon 1Dmk2N and this is VVVVVEEEEERRRYYYY best camera. FAST+IMG QUality+DURABLE etc etc etc…. Wake up people. The next camera i will be a Canon 5D mk 2 OF COURSE!!!!

    • Jason

      5d is the typical camera for suckers. Canon is the Honda of cameras. What kind of a loser must come to a fourthirds forum to talk about Canon, the same one who thinks Honda or Canon is the only choice? Both good brands, nut they are built for the masses….

      • Chris

        True. The 5D mk II is a full-frame Rebel. Not that that’s a bad thing, I’m a Canon fan myself, but I do think the 5D mk II is just a full-frame camera without the autofocus system of a 7D or the speed of a 1Ds.

      • Chris

        Also, regarding durability… I’m fairly sure the 5D mk II is nowhere near are durable as the E-5 or a Pentax. These cameras can take a drop into a pool of water and still work… try that with the 5D.

        • Jason


        • e_dawg

          Yep. You get what you pay for, more or less with most cameras:

          Canon puts much of the cost allocation of the 5DMkII into the sensor and imaging chain. The AF system, metering, and construction quality is secondary. The Sony FF cameras are the same way (except the AF system is actually good and they spent money on having the best viewfinder and prism in its class).

          Olympus puts much of the cost allocation of the E-3 and E-5 into the mechanical precision of the viewfinder, prism, and mirror-box design, weather sealing, construction quality, and the AF system. The sensor and imaging chain and metering are secondary.

          Expensive pro cameras like the 1D and D3 series are expensive because they spend a ton of money on both the imaging chain and the mechanical construction.

          When you get to the sub-$3000 level for FF bodies and sub-$1700 level for APS-C bodies, you can’t have it all. You have to compromise somewhere, and companies have different philosophies on how and where. Canon seems to sacrifice construction quality for marketable features and specs (and they did it yet again with the 60D), and Olympus seems quite the opposite at least for their pro-oriented E-3 and E-5 models.

          • Rocky


      • Scott

        I had a 5dll and sold it to buy a e5. The Canon is a toy compared to the e5

  • Bob

    You can buy an E-5 + a 150/2.0 for the same price as a D3s body. That’s why I will buy an E-5.

  • Brandon

    Well if you only want one to three lenses, good deal. The more lenses you buy, the less the advantage from saving on the body. Additionally, the more lenses you buy, the more the narrower catalog comes into play, taxing your options for growth. While many famous photographers have made their mark with only a lens or two, I don’t think the great majority of photographers are built for such a tactic. Extending that opinion, I doubt most photographers should consider a flagship camera if they won’t be equipping it with a full lens arsenal.

    • Bob

      Hmm, but if you add, say an Nikon 300/2.8 (roughly equal to ZD 150/2.0) to your D3s, you can add a ZD 14-35/2.0 and a ZD 35-100/2.0 to your E-5. That would be 3 SHG ZD lenses + an E-5 for the same cost as a D3s and one lens. If you don’t need ultra high ISO but invest your money on SHG lenses, buying an Olympus system is a smarter choise, atleast for me.

      • Scott

        Its a no brainer

  • Dude!

    Simply put–if Olympus was so great, the pros would be buying it droves. Last time I checked, that ain’t happening. Oh yeah, another thing E-5 has over D3s–“Art Filters”–really crucial mistake by Nikon….hahhh!

    Silly comparison designed to boost morale of desperate Olympus and its fanboys. Just confirms that Olympus is going into toilet.

    • Chris

      Wrong. The pros have probably either:

      A.) Been locked into the Nikon or Canon lens system since the film days
      B.) Bought a Nikon or Canon due to better availability of rental equipment
      C.) Bought a Nikon or Canon due to brand recognition and hype
      D.) Wouldn’t be taken seriously by possible employers because of reason C.

      I used to be all about Canon… the first camera I bought with my own money was a Canon ELPH LT, and I was locked in by brand loyalty ever since. I even bought an AE-1 Program for my photography classes when I went back to school.

      I started researching Olympus because I wanted a digital camera I could use my FD lenses on. The quality of the images I’ve seen from Olympus during my research is astounding. I later bought a Pentax 67 and the lenses I have for that camera are amazing, as good as anything I’ve gotten from using a Hasselblad for a fraction of the price.

      If I were to buy a digital camera now, I’d probably go with either an Oly or a Pentax simply for the ZD lenses or the ability to adapt my 67 lenses to the Pentax body. The ruggedness and weatherproofing of their flagship cameras is a big plus as well.

      If my FD lenses were compatible with the EOS bodies, or if Canon made a medium format camera, I’d still be locked into Canon because of sheer brand loyalty, nostalgia, and hype.

    • Boss

      Dude – you’re just a douche, kill yourself.

      • bob

        @Boss–you should stop drinking your mom’s douche–it’s making you hallucinate and believe the Olympus bull—-t passed around as fact.

        @Chris– wrong to you. Pros switch systems, based on their needs. Pro camera stores will rent equipment based on the demands/needs of pros–that’s why you can rent profoto strobes, but not novatrons. There is no demand for Olympus at the pro level. You don’t shoot professionally, it’s clear from your yabber. Nikon and Canon control the pro market because they put out pro level products, not b/s features like “Fart Filters”. Pro–fast frame rate, reliable and fast AF (compare the e-5 to the D3s in low light!), heavy duty bodies, killer set of fast wide lenses, both primes and zooms (where are the fast AF primes from Oly to overcome the noisier sensors?), etc. Really, if Olympus put out stuff that had any advantage over Canon/Nikon, the pros (and many advanced amateurs) would be all over it, and not the D3, 1D/1Ds, Hassy, Leaf, etc.

        What does the E-5 bring to the table? Limited dynamic range, outdated sensor, noisy, poor image processing, iffy low light focusing, and a dead-end system with 4/3 — yep, all the things that a pro really wants in his/her bread-and-butter system.

        And Zuiko lenses have no great advantage over same level Nikon and Canon offerings. They are all great glass, so it comes down to the bodies.

        @Chris–wrong to you.

        • Chris

          Define “pro.” Wedding shooter? Sports photographer? Well, the D3 and the 1/D would fit the bill better.

          Portrait or landscape photographer? I don’t see the point in digital. “Pros” like Eric Ogden still use medium format film, and top photographers like Dawoud Bey, Paul D’Amato, and Richard Renaldi use view cameras.

          I shoot film, I always have, and I haven’t made the switch yet because I don’t see the need to. The thing that would convince me to buy digital? A rugged body I can take where I can’t take my film cameras. Why would I need to blow $5k on a camera body and another grand or so on a weather sealed lens when I can get the Olympus or a Pentax for much less?

          Also, about the fast primes… why would you need a set of fast primes when you have bright f/2 zooms with the Olympus SHG range?

        • mark

          I bought an E-5 and got rid of ALL of my nikon gear. WHY? The zuiko glass is better than any nikon or canon glass…period. The white balance and colors that I get out of this camera are astonishing. The build and feel is second to none. I love it. It takes nicer photos than my nikons did.

  • Carl

    I have owned Nikon film and shoot weddings for many years. My Oly E-3 with two lens system takes me from 24mm to 400mm easily out shooting where I shoot any Nikon or Canon system in the same rice range or in many cases greater. Try standing under a waterfall at Victoria Falls, blowing sand on Dune 45 Namibia, or a waterpark getting soaked with your grandchild. I travel where Nikon and Canon run for the nearest plastic bag and get paid for my photos without a probem. On a recent trip I discussed weather tight cameras with a Nikon lover who had a full frame 35mm model and told me his camera was weather tight except for the pop up flash. I told him that was to bad and proceded to shoot great photos in the rain while he watched with his camera tucked under his coat. What good is an expensie camera system if it can’t play the entire game? Maybe some Nikon and Canon models are better in certain areas, but if they can’t stand up to a Florida shower on the beach during a wedding than what good is the camera while the bride continues with the wedding and her photographer ducks for cover?

    • whatever

      obsolete before it even hits the shelves
      morons who foam at the mouth in its defense
      go buy your entry level epl1 sensor shoehorned into a recycled e3 body
      i pity these fools, just geta used E3 if youre that desperate
      i can only see upgrading from an e3 if its practically falling apart in your hands
      otherwise, what’s the point??

      • mark

        How do you think it is obsolete? If you are referring to megapixel count and if it can shoot at 2500iso, then you have no clue.
        I shot this e-5 side by side with a 21 mp or so canon 5d, and the olympus photos where better. So, what is your point?

  • Ian

    I love my E-5. However, I don’t consider myself a fanboy. I believe that the D3S outperforms the E-5 depending on the margins you’re looking for. If you need insanely higher ISO or more shallow depth of field, then the D3S or other “full frame” cameras are what you’re looking for.

    But let us not forget the price difference between these 2 cameras and that the E-5 is meant to go head to head with the D300s and 7D, not the D3S. I believe the E-5 is an excellent competitor in the market.

    At the end of the day let us not forget that our cameras are merely tools that have no opinion of their own. If you feel your tool limits you from getting the job done, make the investment to something better. We’re not in elementary school, cut the crap with all brand bashing and go capture photos.

  • Bob

    My answer was to bob, not to you Chris, sorry.

    • luca mariz

      Ian, u’re right.
      cameras are just tools in our hands, the difference in made by the photographer. i’m sure anyone of the great ones could take better pictures with a shoebox than a novice with a d3s / eos x / e5….
      that said, I’m a bit sad about Olympus. when i began many years ago, i choose Olympus and got myself an OM1…then came the OM3 and all the zuiko lenses, ranging from the 16mm to the 300mm…then olympus simply and sadly disappeared from the market…
      in the 90 i bought a F4 and began to use nikon. when it came the time to try dig, i bought a D100 and could easily use all my nikkor lenses.. so easy and nice, saving a lot of money. in that moment i realized how smart nikon guys were…
      Now u can guess my surprise and disbelief when i realized olympus, once decided to get into dig business, engineered it in a way it’s almost impossible to use the outstanding zuiko lenses (well, u can use the adapter, but the result is not that good and the focal lenght is doubled!!!)
      is it weird, isn’t it???

  • ep1 user

    Ooo, internet tough guy….*roll eyes*. Go play in a corner nicely…

  • Give me the Olympus anytime!

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

What are Cookies?
A cookie is a small file of letters and numbers that is stored in a temporary location on your computer to allow our website to distinguish you from other users of the website. If you don't want to accept cookies, you'll still be able to browse the site and use it for research purposes. Most web browsers have cookies enabled, but at the bottom of this page you can see how to disable cookies. Please note that cookies can't harm your computer. We don't store personally identifiable information in the cookies, but we do use encrypted information gathered from them to help provide you with a good experience when you browse our website and also allow us to improve our site. You can watch a simple video from Google to find more information about cookies.

Cookies used by our Website
The 43rumors website, 43rumors.com, uses the following cookies for the collection of website usage statistics and to ensure that we can . These are anonymous and temporary. By using our website, you agree that we may place these types of cookies on your device.
Read how Google uses data when you use our partners' sites or apps: http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/partners/
Google Analytics Cookie Usage on Websites: https://developers.google.com/analytics/devguides/collection/analyticsjs/cookie-usage?csw=1#cookiesSet Addthis cookies: http://www.addthis.com/privacy.
Disqus cookies: https://help.disqus.com/customer/portal/articles/466235-use-of-cookies.
Vimeo cookies: http://vimeo.com/privacy.
Youtube cookies: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/171780?hl=en-GB

Disabling/Enabling Cookies
You have the ability to accept or decline cookies by modifying the settings in your browser. Please note however that by deleting our cookies or disabling future cookies you may not be able to access certain areas or features of our site. For information about how to disable cookies in your browser please visit the About Cookies website.