Olympus OM-D E-M1 v Nikon D7100

September 13, 2013 | Mark Goldstein | Compact System Camera, Digital SLR Cameras | 13 Comments | |
News image

One of the big selling points of the new OM-D E-M1 camera, at least according to Olympus, is its size in comparison with an equivalent DSLR. To illustrate this point, Olympus literally weighed the E-M1 and the Nikon D7100 on the same set of scales, together with three lenses each. The D7100 with the 24-70mm, 10-24mm and the 105mm lenses weighed in at 2765g, whilst the E-M1 and the 12-40mm, 9-18mm and the 75mm lenses came in at a mere 1348g, half the weight of its Nikon rival.

Food for thought if you're thinking of building a camera system, especially for street and travel photographers - but would the size difference be enough to tempt you to choose the OM-D E-M1 (or compact system cameras in general) with their smaller sensors, instead of a DSLR?

Image Gallery

Click on a thumbnail to see the full version.

Tracker Pixel for Entry

Your Comments

13 Comments | Newest Oldest First | Post a Comment

#1 Michael Kaufman

Wouldn't it have made more sense to weight the D7100 with the 17-55? It would still have come out heavier, but not by as much.

5:46 am - Saturday, September 14, 2013

#2 zafer

OM-E better than HUBBLE :)

9:42 am - Saturday, September 14, 2013

#3 G.

@michael kaufman...17-55 is not f.2.8 is not waterproof, so the right lens to compare in Nikon worldwide is 24-70...and m43 win not only for weight but in sole too. You can put the em1 in a small bag with the 3 lens...

11:45 am - Saturday, September 14, 2013

#4 Michael Kaufman

@G You misunderstand me. I have an E-M1 on order to replace my existing E-M5. No one has to sell me on the value of M4/3.

But, on the D7100, the 24-70 lens is actually a 36-105 lens. Comparing it to a lens that is the equivalent of a 24-70 lens doesn't seem fair to me. Waterproof or not.

2:45 pm - Saturday, September 14, 2013

#5 JHF

@G the 17-55mm is an F2.8 lens and yes it also has sealing but don't let the truth get in the way

6:20 pm - Saturday, September 14, 2013

#6 M

So 2618 vs 1348 grams then, if using the 17-55.

5:59 am - Sunday, September 15, 2013

#7 Thomas

They forgot to add the weight of the image quality...

12:19 pm - Monday, September 16, 2013

#8 LT

Nikon 24-70 (FF lens) on APS-C is 36-105mm. 24-70 eq is 16-55 which is 150g lighter. 10-24mm is not equal to MFT 9-18mm there is 18-36 which is 100g lighter. And you compared FF lenses with hood vs MFT without :))

6:17 am - Tuesday, September 17, 2013

#9 Neil

Nikon is less $ per pound though!

3:36 pm - Tuesday, September 17, 2013

#10 Dan

@G, you wrote "17-55 is not f.2.8 is not waterproof," but in fact it IS f/2.8 and I believe is weather-sealed --it was the "pro" lens for when Nikon's top camera was DX/APS-C D2x(s). And it has the right FOV to be matched with the 12-40 for m4/3.

6:52 pm - Friday, September 20, 2013

#11 snay

Agree with Dan the f/2.8 is indeed waterproof.

3:11 pm - Tuesday, October 1, 2013

#12 Brad Calkins

Odd - the Manual on their website states: "Do not get water on the lens or drop it in water as this will cause it to rust and malfunction."

But the general page states 'Dust and Waterproof rubber sealing mount'.

I'm not saying I know if the 17-55 is waterproof or not, but you'd be hard pressed to know it is from Nikon's website! That said, as an OM-D owner who chose the system for size, I would consider the 17-55mm a better equivalent choice than the 24-70 f/2.8 option, whether it is weather sealed or not...

2:21 pm - Sunday, October 6, 2013

#13 Odd Sally

I could not believe that an upgrade from a "simple" camera could do so much.
It's a superb camera to and is amazingly smooth with all direct access buttons.
It's pictorial, so there's not much difference from my D5100, but the images will turn out better. Auto-focus is very fast.
Anyone considering purchasing the D7100 needs to see the information in this chart

6:49 pm - Sunday, November 3, 2013