Olympus E-M5 II vs. Sigma sd Quattro: A Deep Dive into Two Advanced Mirrorless Cameras

In my years of hands-on experience testing a broad range of mirrorless and DSLR cameras - from the compact to the flagship - the Olympus OM-D E-M5 II and the Sigma sd Quattro stand out as compelling representatives of very different mirrorless philosophies. Despite their shared “advanced mirrorless” category, they serve notably divergent user bases, technical workflows, and photographic priorities.

Having spent considerable time using both under varied shooting conditions and disciplines, I’m eager to share insights beyond spec sheets - the tactile ergonomics, nuanced image qualities, autofocus practicalities, and how each performs across portraiture, landscapes, wildlife, and more. With this comprehensive comparison, you should come away with a clear understanding of which camera best fits your style, needs, and budget.

Hands-On at First Glance: Size and Handling

Before even firing a shutter, the way a camera feels in the hand profoundly influences the shooting experience. Olympus engineered the E-M5 II in a classic SLR-style mirrorless body, comfortably compact yet thoughtfully sculpted for extended handheld use. The Sigma sd Quattro, by contrast, adopts a rangefinder-style chassis with a wider, chunkier grip and a heftier footprint.

At roughly 124x85x45 mm and weighing 469 grams, the E-M5 II fits easily into a jacket pocket or compact camera bag. I found it exceptionally nimble for street shooting or travel days when minimal kit fatigue matters. The Sigma, measuring a bulkier 147x95x91 mm at 625 grams, commands a more deliberate handling rhythm; its size and weight hint at a camera designed for slower, considered imaging rather than quick grabs.

Both offer excellent build quality with weather resistance. Olympus’s sealing protection enables confidence shooting in moderate rain or dusty environments, making it truly versatile on outdoor adventures. The Sigma also provides environmental sealing, but its larger body notably lacks in ergonomic refinement. I occasionally found my grip wanting during extended handheld sessions, especially zooming or macro-focused work.

Control Layout and Interface: Intuitive and Efficient

Next, controls matter immensely when shifting between spontaneous street candids and planned studio setups. Olympus leans heavily into user-friendly tactile dials, buttons, and a customizable interface that seasoned professionals appreciate.

The E-M5 II’s top plate offers dedicated exposure compensation, shutter speed, and mode dials that feel precise and positive. The rear 3-inch fully articulating touchscreen responds well, doubling as a critical tool for creative angle shooting or video framing.

In contrast, Sigma’s fixed 3-inch screen lacks touch capability, which was a surprise given the camera’s 2016 release. The rangefinder body presents fewer physical controls; fewer dedicated dials force reliance on menus and button combos, slowing workflow for anyone accustomed to Olympus’s immediacy. Still, Sigma focuses on a clean design that some might prefer for stripped-down shooting.

Sensor and Image Quality: Two Approaches to Resolution and Color

Arguably the most defining technical difference lies in the sensor technologies. Olympus uses a 16MP Four Thirds CMOS sensor, while Sigma employs its proprietary 29MP APS-C Foveon X3 sensor - a highly distinctive, layered sensor capturing full RGB data per pixel.

Olympus E-M5 II’s Four Thirds sensor excels with reliable color reproduction and a respectable 12.4 stops of dynamic range at base ISO 200. While 16 megapixels might seem modest today, the camera’s TruePic VII processor does a superb job balancing detail with low noise, especially with the built-in 5-axis stabilization reducing blur at lower shutter speeds.

Sigma sd Quattro’s Foveon sensor lacks an anti-aliasing filter, which theoretically delivers incredibly sharp files with exceptional color fidelity. The 29-megapixel effective resolution delivers rich files at base ISO 100, particularly excelling in deliberate, studio-style shooting where detail nuances matter most. However, this sensor’s performance dips noticeably at higher ISOs, capped at 6400 native. Noise levels climb sharply, limiting low light flexibility.

From my tests, Olympus delivers images with cleaner shadows in tricky lighting and smoother tones for portraits, while Sigma images provide exquisite detail and tonal layering - if you can manage slower shutter speeds or tripod use.

Autofocus System: Speed, Accuracy, and Tracking

Autofocus reliability determines if your decisive moment is captured or lost, especially in fast-moving scenarios.

The E-M5 II combines contrast detection with a sophisticated 81-point AF system, including face detection and eye-detection autofocus. In real-world practice, I found Olympus’ system impressively fast and accurate across a range of lighting and subject movement. It supports continuous AF at 10fps shooting, enabling capturing action sequences or wildlife in motion.

The Sigma Quattro’s AF employs both phase and contrast-detection but with only 9 focus points. While it’s precise for static or studio work, I noticed slower AF lock speeds and less fluid continuous tracking under dynamic conditions. Its 3.8 fps continuous rate also falls behind contemporary standards.

For sports or wildlife photographers, Olympus wins here hands down with its fluid tracking and robust eye detection modes. Sigma’s AF is more suitable for carefully controlled compositions or landscapes.

Portrait Photography: Skin Tones and Background Separation

In portraiture, subtle skin tone rendition and bokeh quality are essential.

Olympus’s combination of sensor characteristics, skin tone optimization, and excellent lens options in Micro Four Thirds mounts offers pleasant, natural skin tones. Its reliable eye-detection autofocus ensures consistently sharp eyes - the key element in compelling portraits. Plus, the 5-axis stabilization allows longer handheld apertures, even in available light.

While Sigma can render exceptional detail on faces and produce a very three-dimensional look due to its sensor, limitations arise with shallow depth of field and bokeh quality. The crop factor and lens line-up offer fewer fast primes compared to Olympus’s vibrant ecosystem of over 100 lenses, some designed for creamy, smooth bokeh effects that portraiture benefits from.

Overall, Olympus has the edge for environmental and casual portraiture. Sigma appeals to studio portrait shooters who prize pixel-level detail and color nuance but are willing to work within its slower, more deliberate capture process.

Landscape Photography: Dynamic Range and Resolution in the Field

Landscape shooters demand wide dynamic range and resolution to capture the breadth of a scene’s light and texture.

Sigma’s higher resolution sensor provides clear advantages here for large prints and cropping freedom. The Foveon sensor’s natural color layering conveys subtle shifts in sky and foliage beautifully. However, the camera lacks image stabilization, so you’ll likely need a tripod for top sharpness.

Olympus offers 12.4 stops of dynamic range, which holds up well in shadow recovery and highlight roll-off. Its 5-axis in-body stabilization is especially handy for handheld late afternoon or dawn shoots, letting you push shutter speed lower without sacrificing detail. Olympus also supports focus bracketing and stacking, a boon for hyper-sharp landscape compositions.

Weather-sealing (both cameras) means you can head into misty or drizzly conditions without worry. I personally favored Olympus for spontaneity and mobility, while Sigma rewarded patient shooters prioritizing ultimate tonal fidelity.

Wildlife and Sports Action: Burst Rates and Tracking

Both cameras target different niches when it comes to high-speed photography needs.

Olympus E-M5 II pushes 10 fps bursts with continuous autofocus, making it a practical companion for capturing birds in flight or athletes on the move. Its contrast-detection AF system, augmented by face tracking, helps maintain focus even on erratic subjects.

Sigma’s 3.8 fps shoot rate and minimal AF points mean missing fleeting moments is a real risk. I tested the Quattro in a local sports game and found its response not suitable for reliable tracking. Its design focus clearly leans elsewhere.

In sum, Olympus is the clear choice for wildlife and sports shooters demanding agile responsiveness. Sigma performs best in controlled, slower contexts.

Street Photography: Discretion and Portability

For street photographers, the balance between portability, quick responsiveness, and quiet operation defines the experience.

Olympus E-M5 II’s compact and lightweight design excels here. The silent electronic shutter option lets you capture scenes discreetly without distracting subject attention. Its articulated touchscreen lends flexibility for creative framing in tight urban settings.

Sigma Quattro’s larger body and slower operational cadence make it less suited to spontaneous street photography. The physical heft draws more attention and lessens the ability to grab impromptu moments.

If you prize low-profile and quick reflexes, Olympus wins for street shooters.

Macro Photography and Close-Ups

Macro involves demanding focusing precision and often benefits from stabilization due to the tiny depth of field.

Olympus features in-body 5-axis stabilization, aiding handheld macro work by stabilizing both horizontal and vertical axes. Its vast Micro Four Thirds lens lineup includes numerous macro lenses, from affordable close-focusing primes to professional-grade optics.

Sigma, without stabilization and with fewer native macro lenses, struggles to equal the convenience or flexibility Olympus offers here. Its manual focus implementation is solid but requires precision.

For macro shooters seeking ease and precision, Olympus leads.

Night and Astrophotography: High ISO and Exposure Control

Low-light work challenges sensor noise and exposure control.

Olympus has a decent ISO range up to 25600 boosted, with solid noise management especially using RAW files. The 5-axis stabilization enables sharp shots at slow shutter speeds, crucial under starlit skies.

Sigma’s lower max ISO of 6400 and noisier files restrict its nighttime utility. Lack of built-in stabilization forces tripod use.

Olympus also features interval shooting and timelapse recording, appealing to astrophotographers and experimental night shooters. Sigma omits these modern usability conveniences.

Video Capabilities: Formats and Stabilization

Video is increasingly critical; users want useful specs and reliable stabilization.

Olympus E-M5 II offers full HD 1080p at up to 60fps, with options for slow-motion and time-lapse. The articulated touchscreen aids framing and menu navigation. Crucially, in-body 5-axis stabilization delivers smooth handheld footage, a huge bonus. It includes a microphone input, making audio recording flexible.

The Sigma Quattro offers no video recording capability, limiting its appeal to hybrid shooters or those interested in multimedia.

Travel and Everyday Versatility

Travel photography demands a balance of size, battery life, and versatility.

Olympus’s compact size, 310-shot battery life, and extensive lens ecosystem make it a well-rounded travel companion. The articulated screen and robust body armor enhance flexibility and reliability on the go.

Sigma’s heavier form and lack of wireless connectivity reduce its suitability for grab-and-go travel. Battery life specs are not well-documented, and slower shooting speed impacts spontaneous capture opportunities.

Professional Use and Workflow Integration

For pros, stability, file type, and workflow matter.

Olympus supports RAW files with solid dynamic range and color depth, plus customizable features and wireless file transfer via built-in Wi-Fi. Its ecosystem integrates well with popular editing software.

Sigma’s 29MP Foveon RAW files produce unique layered data, prized by fine art photographers who want maximum color accuracy but require specialized software and a more niche workflow.

Connectivity, Battery, and Storage

Connectivity-wise, Olympus offers Wi-Fi for quick image transfer, remote control, and easy sharing, important for today’s instant digital workflows. Sigma lacks wireless connectivity altogether.

Battery life favors Olympus with rated 310 shots per charge, while Sigma’s battery life remains unspecified but generally shorter based on my prolonged use.

Both cameras rely on a single SD card slot - typical in this class.

Price and Value: Which Offers More Bang for Your Buck?

At the time of writing, Olympus E-M5 II is offered around $699, versus Sigma Quattro near $738.

Olympus delivers a comprehensive feature set - compact, stabilized, high-speed AF, and video - at a competitive price.

Sigma offers a unique sensor and exceptional color resolution at a similar cost but trades off speed and convenience.

Final Verdict: Matching Camera to Photographer’s Needs

Here’s how I recommend these based on my testing and experience:

• Choose Olympus E-M5 II if you want:

  • A versatile, rugged, lightweight camera for travel, street, wildlife, and sports
  • Excellent autofocus speed and tracking with eye detection
  • In-body image stabilization and high-quality video with audio inputs
  • A well-supported lens ecosystem and wireless connectivity
  • Strong overall performance across most photography types

• Choose Sigma sd Quattro if you want:

  • The highest possible detail and color fidelity for studio, fine art, and landscape work
  • Unique Foveon sensor characteristic for printing and archival images
  • Can work patiently with slower autofocus and minimal video needs
  • You embrace a more deliberate, workflow-intensive shooting style

Olympus E M5 II front Olympus E M5 II screen back Sigma Quattro front Sigma Quattro screen back

Analyzing overall performance with established benchmarks further clarifies strengths:

Breaking down scores into specific photography genres highlights Olympus’s well-rounded nature versus Sigma’s focused excellence:

Finally, to round off I want to share a few thoughts on usage scenarios that highlight each model’s true capabilities.

Practical Shooting Scenarios: When Olympus Shines

On a recent landscape hike, the E-M5 II’s weather sealing gave me confidence under a light drizzle, while the 5-axis stabilization let me handhold slow shutter waterfalls crisp and blur-free. Switching quickly to street mode, its silent shutter and quick AF locked onto passerby expressions unobtrusively.

At a local wildlife preserve, its 10fps burst and continuous AF tracked birds flitting between branches surprisingly well, a pleasure compared with every other mirrorless I’ve tried in that range.

Video work for a small documentary short leveraged the articulated screen and in-body stabilization to deliver steady handheld footage - a huge time saver without external rigs.

A Closer Look at Sigma’s Strengths

Using the Sigma Quattro in a studio setting, shooting product portraits on a tripod, I was blown away by the resolution and color rendering - fine details like fabric texture and subtle color gradients emerged with remarkable clarity.

Landscape shots under bright sun revealed excellent tonal separation in shadows and highlights, tempting me to print large gallery frames.

However, the experience demands a slower, methodical pace - one that fits professionals or enthusiasts focused on highest image quality rather than speed or versatility.

Experienced Tips for Maximizing Each Camera’s Potential

• For Olympus users: leverage focus bracketing and in-body stabilization for macro and landscape work, and experiment with Pro Capture mode to maximize burst potential.

• For Sigma users: invest in sturdy tripods, use manual focus aids, and embrace postprocessing workflows that unlock the Foveon sensor’s potential.

Wrapping Up: A Balanced Trade-Off

Both cameras represent intelligent design tailored to distinct photographic philosophies. Olympus E-M5 II is a trustworthy, adaptable performer for photographers who need speed, versatility, and reliability in varied settings. Sigma sd Quattro is a niche tool for image makers aiming for unparalleled detail and color in slower, purposeful shooting environments.

Armed with this detailed comparison grounded in hands-on experience and technical insight, I hope you feel empowered to choose the mirrorless camera that best matches your creative vision and workflow habits.

Should you have any specific shooting scenarios or feature questions, feel free to reach out - I’m always eager to share more from the field.