In the case of OM-D, I took the ORF file as it came from the camera (I do not know if it underwent any treatment such as denoising or sharpening). In the case of D800, I took the RAW files. All files were processed to look pleasant, but (given the different outside conditions) the color balance is different.
All were then converted to jpeg. The D800 jpegs had to be downsampled to the OM-D pixel size, in order not to exceed the 10MB per file forum limit. This yields 4608*3456. I had to compress the 45mm file even further, however not changing the resolution (11MB instead of 9.5 with the 55mm). Note: upon upload the resolution gets down to 1200*1600. Duh.
The D800 was mounted with
- a 55/2.8 micro Nikkor @ f/5.6 and 1/80s, 3200 ISO
- a PCE-45 @ f/4.5 and 1/50s, 1600 ISO
The OM-D came with the kit lens (14-42/3.5-5.6 MkII) set at 18mm (36mm equivalent), @ f/3.9, 1/30s and ISO 1600, with in-camera stabilizer. Here it is:
Now the 55mm file:
And finally the 45mm file:
No doubt D800 is better, with lesser noise, and a somewhat cleaner image, especially around high-contrast zones. I could have tweaked even better performance from the Oly by putting the stabilizer at use and shooting at 1/6 or 1/10s, at lower ISO though, something the D800 has not in reserve. As far as the lens flare and sharpness is concerned, please remember there is a Panasonic/Leica 25mm available, which I think is much better...
So, for my (travel and organ documenting) purposes, the Oly is definitely an option. Tell me what you notice.
Edited by Airy, 08 October 2012 - 18:09 .