Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: Brian Hirschfeld on August 06, 2013, 09:06:28 pm

Title: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: Brian Hirschfeld on August 06, 2013, 09:06:28 pm
does anyone know if it will have a mirror? a la slr or will it be another evf?
Title: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: BJL on August 07, 2013, 09:44:53 am
does anyone know if it will have a mirror? a la slr or will it be another evf?
As far as I can tell, nobody outside of Olympus HQ really knows yet, but all the signs point towards it being usable with both Micro Four Thirds and Four Thirds SLR lenses ... and the first half of that means no room for a mirror and optical viewfinder. If you will permit some speculation: since the new partnership between Olympus and Sony does involve some joint efforts on photography (even if the main purpose is the far more profitable medical equipment sector), I am betting on Olympus adopting a Sony sensor with in-sensor PDAF in order to better support Four Thirds SLR lenses.

If it also gets a built-in EVF on a par with the latest accessory VF-3 and/or the next generation of Sony EVF's, I think that most Four Thirds SLR users will be willing to leave the OVF behind: the smaller 4/3" format hampers the performance of OVF's significantly compared to 36x24 format, and Four Thirds SLR's were never particularly competitive for fast action photography, so any slight residual EVF lag should be less of a worry than if Canon or Nikon dropped the OVF from their high-end cameras.
Title: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: bcooter on August 07, 2013, 12:42:58 pm
does anyone know if it will have a mirror? a la slr or will it be another evf?

I hope it does have an evf and I hope it has better video capabilities, ala the gh3.  72mbs intra file, please give us a 10 bit video and keep it in a .mov wrapper.

My omd is a strange bird, not near as functional as my gh3's, sometimes not as pretty a file, (though sharper), but a very interesting little camera.

I understand the "pro" version might be slightly larger and be able to really use all of that lovely oly regular 4/3 glass which would be great (but costly).

The things  I hope for is sound monitoring, using their current in body I.S., a larger viewfinder and please, please, please, make a menu system that doesn't have 86 (seriously 86?) sub menus.

Take away crazy stuff like off with I.S. is really on and put normal functions on a button that is marked as a button someting like the gh3, where wb, iso, exposure comp are all in one area and are hard buttons marked as such.

Also little things like making the dial functions rotate the way you want.  Today with the OMD they are counter intuitive.  Left to make the F stops wider (brighter), right on the second dial to make the shutter brighter (longer).  It may make technical sense, but not in your brain.  Left or right should be brighter, the opposite way darker.

Last but not least set the auto sensitivity where if your shooting horizontal your at 3:2, then automatically go to 4:3 when shooting vertical.  I rarely shoot a 4:3 horizontal without some thoght, same with a 2:3 vertical.

This is all probably a mute point as the cameras are probably being made as I write this.

Still, I really love (I don't know why) the OMD.   

I just hope they take it one step (ok make that 10 steps) further and 5% larger.

But if there is any image quality benefit, I'll probably buy anyway. 



IMO

BC
Title: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: Brian Hirschfeld on August 07, 2013, 10:25:22 pm
Thanks for the replies, prob getting into OMD with the FT tele's and it sounds like this new body will be a welcome addition.
Title: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: MoreOrLess on August 08, 2013, 05:14:37 am
I wonder how they would deal with the differences in flange distance without an adapter? maybe have a movable mount that can shift backwards and forwards?
Title: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: SZRitter on August 08, 2013, 09:22:29 am
The mount is an interesting concept. It either has to be an adapter or some sort of collar that extends out.

If it's true, it will be a great way to get some decent zooms other than shelling out for the Panasonic 2.8s. Not to mention, phase AF is going to be huge if it works well.

My only complaint on the EM-5 is that I would like a mic input. 3.5mm would be just fine. There really is no excuse not to add one, and if you want anyone to take your video at least halfway serious, you should have one. The hotshoe mount just doesn't work.
Title: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: bcooter on August 08, 2013, 02:24:08 pm
The mount is an interesting concept. It either has to be an adapter or some sort of collar that extends out.

If it's true, it will be a great way to get some decent zooms other than shelling out for the Panasonic 2.8s. Not to mention, phase AF is going to be huge if it works well.

My only complaint on the EM-5 is that I would like a mic input. 3.5mm would be just fine. There really is no excuse not to add one, and if you want anyone to take your video at least halfway serious, you should have one. The hotshoe mount just doesn't work.

They probably will have a better adapter, though they are coming out with 2.8 zooms like panasonic, though not the 2.0's of FT size.  The only problem of the original FT lenses is they are not that small, in fact they're pretty big in comparison to the body, though the oly lenses like the 200 f2 are fine optics and build.

Having both the gh3 and the omd, I can tell you the gh3 is a much better video camera, actually much better camera overall, the omd feels better, shoots a 10% better still file and is more endearing and that last word is hard to say because the omd is also maddening.

The menu is insane.  It's like 14 main items with 86 sub menus, or something crazy.  I spent 45minutes a night, when time permitted, for two weeks, went through 14 or so websites just to find out how to set wysiwyg in the ovf.    

I did it and set it on a special myset function and still don't don't what the combination is to do it, I just know I did it.  

That's crazy.

So is the no output for 3.5 mm headphone jacks.   Makes no sense, on any camera that shoots video, even if you run to a separate recorder.

The OMD video thing is just goofy because the i.s. in the body is so very good.  Why they don't match panasonic in video function has to be some kind of back door handshake deal with Sony that nobody can make sense of it.

With all it's issues and as crazy as the omd is to work at times, it feels like a jewel, well like a leica and one of the few cameras that you throw over your shoulder and everyone says, "wow" that's a beautiful camera.

I personally love working with micro 4/3's for lifestyle advertising.  The cameras are just perfect in size, you can throw two or three on your shoulder, go to video in an instant, (good video . . . real good video) and then flick a switch and if you know how to process well, you can produce a great still.  

I also like the idea of a blackmagic 4/3's camera for a 16mm look, as long as it works.  I've gone through some of the teething pains of the RED and can't do it again in production, so if the small blackmagic 4/3's works I'll be there.

I find both the gh3 and the omd to shoot a very strange but pretty file.  It seems that no matter what you do they come out kind of green, almost identical to RED One files (so it's something I'm use to), but with some correction they look what I consider film like and a lot of people have a different view on what film like is.  Some think it's the smoothness of a 5dIII but to me film like is kind of grainy, kind of textured and looks like well . . . film and that's what I see when I use the OMD.   

The only thing needed is for Olympus to wake up.   I know the Iphone has killed the market for small cameras,  but the pen series, the omd are stunning cameras in look and feel, but they need more function, a little better higher iso . . . not a lot a little and some logic with the menu.  

Olympus needs more consistency in their mft lenses.  Some like the 75mm rival lecia in build quality some look good, but feel like plastic and very light, though all the oly lenses are amazing sharp actually as sharp as my zeiss contax where are the sharpest real world lenses I've ever used.  Much sharper than my leica lenses.

Actually, in the world of digital I think sensor size matters less than usability.  At least in what I do.  I like these smaller cameras, because regular dslrs are huge.  It's not a life or weight issue, it's just dslrs all look the same (black) and all look like plastic and a camera like the omd is different and a joy to hold and use.  Maybe the new blackmagic will be the same.  I hope so, but I really wish I could pick and choose the video capabilities of the gh3, the file quality (hopefully) of the black magic, the file codec (prorezz) of the black magic and the look, feel and build of the OMD. 

But........ the omd menu is truly painful.

IMO

BC

Title: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: SZRitter on August 08, 2013, 02:44:31 pm
But........ the omd menu is truly painful.

Yep. But I had an E-PM1 prior, so I knew how awful they were. That said, bracketing is the only reason I access them on a regular basis, most things are done from the quick menu (or SCP, or whatever they call it).

The reason I went m43 over Fuji X was the more rounded system. The Panasonic bodies for video and Oly for photos (and now BM for video) seemed like a killer combo. Not to mention, yes, the Oly 45mm feels like plastic, but it is a fine, fine lens worthy of almost any shooters bag. And it served me well when I had one. I don't need the best video, just competent looking ones, which the EM-5 can provide. Audio is captured on a Zoom H1, then synced in post. Annoying, as my D7000 at least I could run it out of and into the camera.
Title: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: bcooter on August 08, 2013, 03:17:07 pm
Yep. But I had an E-PM1 prior, so I knew how awful they were. That said, bracketing is the only reason I access them on a regular basis, most things are done from the quick menu (or SCP, or whatever they call it).

The reason I went m43 over Fuji X was the more rounded system. The Panasonic bodies for video and Oly for photos (and now BM for video) seemed like a killer combo. Not to mention, yes, the Oly 45mm feels like plastic, but it is a fine, fine lens worthy of almost any shooters bag. And it served me well when I had one. I don't need the best video, just competent looking ones, which the EM-5 can provide. Audio is captured on a Zoom H1, then synced in post. Annoying, as my D7000 at least I could run it out of and into the camera.

Yes, but really, how hard is it to make a two channel mic in and head phone out jack?

Really, it's like somebody said, ok we make the sensor so, you do the stills, we'll do the video, but the video can only be 8 bit, the stills can only be 12 bit and  . . .

Some of these workarounds are goofy and really affect workflow.

I know the traditional ways of having a separate sound recording is normal, a scratch sound on camera is standard and using plural eyes, or fcp's syncing is a way to work, but it's a lot more work when you have a shoot with 200 clips.

I just don't understand why camera makers are so far behind on what the professional market wants.  Every client is asking for video and not just crappy, shake around video, but in focus, cinematic looking video and they want it  . . . NOW.  They are also asking for animated gifs, faster retouching, beautiful coloured video.

I get a request a day for video and stills from our ongoing and past projects.  I just got one yesterday for 13 clips and a burned in logo, primary and secondary colour.

To the outsider it seems like a slam dunk.  Just process out 13 clips and stick a logo on in the NLE, right?  But when you add up the numbers, find the files, process out in cinex (RED cameras), or if it's a gh3, transcode to pro rezz, find the sound files, sync them up, prep an eps logo, find the size, send out screen shots for approval, get the ok, burn out the clip with secondary color, transcode in three or four flavors, the estimate is high (not in my terms, but client terms), but when you add up the time it's a 8 hour marathon . . . minimum, regardless of the system, computer, nle, camera you work with.

And off topic btw:   I've been running the latest (silver) mac desktops for our video in three stations.  12 cores, a fiber optic drive base  and since I use fcp 7 I didn't think any new computer would speed it up.  Anyway, I just bought a new 3 point something Imac as one of our Imacs went down and for grins loaded up fcp7. 

I am shocked how fast it blows through fcp 7.  It's virtually real time.  Renders that were 5 to 10 minutes are seconds.   Crazy that a 3 grand computer does this.

Then you see something like flixel which are animated gifs and you realize if the camera makers really want to sell more cameras, they need to integrate to programs like this.  wi-fi shouldn't be semi good it should be push a button standard.

Actually the camera makers could completely integrate a whole package.  A camera, lenses, in camera stabilization, wireless mics, that actually go to multiple cameras and integration with apps that do color, animated gifs, things that the market wants in a way where you open the case, pull out the cameras shoot, download and work.

Now to do what I just mentioned takes many multiple makers, many multiple apps and machines.

Things are changing.

IMO

BC
Title: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: OldRoy on August 09, 2013, 01:10:05 pm
Also little things like making the dial functions rotate the way you want. 
BC
Maybe I don't understand P87 of the manual. But there again, I'm not a Mac user.
Roy
Title: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: bcooter on August 09, 2013, 02:18:03 pm
Maybe I don't understand P87 of the manual. But there again, I'm not a Mac user.
Roy

Unless your seeing something I'm not, when you go into the menu functions of dial selection and direction, it's a visual trick.

When you go to those settings and make changes it looks like the direction of the dials change, but what changes is the dial function and each dial goes a different direction for settings so you see the dial direction arrow change and you think ah-ha that's how you change dial direction, but instead all you've done is change the dial function from shutter to f stop, or f stop to shutter (in manual mode).

If I'm wrong, (I hope I'm wrong), please enlighten me.

The thing is and the achilles heel of the omd is the bloody menu.  If one dial did f stops, one dial did shutter and the mode dial did manual to aperture priority, etc. it would be easy.  Especially if the dials went in the proper direction and maybe it's me, but it seems to me that if I want a scene brighter, I want both dials to move in a direction that makes a scene brighter, not be opposed.

I've never gotten use to it and I've shot a lot with this little camera.

They also need to be more clear on the focus point settings, in camera stabilization, (which has to be set in the menu as off, to actually be on).

I dig this camera, for the look of the file, the build quality, the feel of the camera, but it's like my newest car.   To change a radio station takes a touch screen lcd and two to three functions.  To do that analog takes one tactile knob and you never take your eyes off the road.

I looked at the Fuji EX1 and Fuji x pro whatever and except for the autofocus and the rangefinder aspect of the camera (which I find a little out of place and not that attractive) the real f stops on a lens, the real shutter dial is just so simple it's crazy.

But I've said this 1000 times.  Who thought wheels rather than f stops on lenses and dials for shutter were a better option on a camera.

In fact go into any store that sells olympus and ask the sales person to set the menu up.    They can't and before and after I bought this camera, every city I travel to, London, Paris, NY, Dallas and LA I went to a camera store played around with the omd and asked the salesperson how to set _____fill in the blanks________.

When I left they we're still thumbing through menus and sub menus.

But honestly if you have a solution I'd love to hear it.

Thanks

BC

P.S.

I think the reason I'm almost obsessed with this camera is it has style.  It's the first digital camera I've owned that didn't look like a thick Ipad with a lens.  The Canon 1 series is a good camera, but they've always just been this big smooth black hunk with a piece of glass stuck in the middle.

They look more like a medical device than a camera.

The Nikons (and my pana gh3's) look like the guy that designed those futuristic sony boom boxes was rehired.

It's not the weight of the camera I mind, it's just the size of modern dslrs.  They're not really unique enough to be that big, not really distinctive enough to be that special looking.

The one exception is Leica and the almost Leica Fuji.  The Fuji I did and have hopes for but the weird thing about the x1 pro is it feels empty.  Like those fake hollywood boulders that look like they weight 200 lbs but weight 2 lbs.  Everytime I pick up the fuji I think it's an empty demo.

Title: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: OldRoy on August 09, 2013, 03:18:57 pm
I'll take your word for it! I can't say that this ever really caused me any problems. Or maybe it's more the case that I have so many competing problems that this one just gets lost in the crowd...
Roy
Title: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: Telecaster on August 09, 2013, 03:25:19 pm
They also need to be more clear on the focus point settings, in camera stabilization, (which has to be set in the menu as off, to actually be on).

You lost me here re. IBIS. If you're not using the OM-D's Super Control Panel, I highly recommend it. Much faster than digging into the full menu system. IBIS is one of the functions you can control. It's either IS Off, IS1 Auto (on), IS2 Vertical or IS3 Horizontal. The latter two are intended for use when panning. The IS1 setting is definitely on, and IS Off is definitely off.

Focus points...the manual is not at all thorough there.

-Dave-
Title: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: Manoli on August 09, 2013, 03:45:12 pm
The one exception is Leica and the almost Leica Fuji.  The Fuji I did and have hopes for ..

BC

I can understand your quasi-obsession with the OMD, in fact any camera that just feels 'right'

But Fuji … think Leica with autofocus, especially since their last two firmware upgrades. Now you've got good autofocus AND focus peaking. I agree about the X-pro, never 'felt' right , but then again I'm not religiously fanatic about OVF's.

The X-E1 with high res EVF feels good in hand (to me at least). I've never had to open the manual (perhaps once) and find the x-trans sensor produces excellent files. Admittedly I don't do video, so after the M8 this was the first camera I took to without any hesitation.

I just set the ISO to the [Fn] button and the front selector to manual focus, and was set to go. If I want autofocus just press the top rhs AF-L  button and it locks on, the minute you twist the focusing ring, focus peaking comes on and is usually just confirmation.

Now waiting for feedback on the new zeiss lenses. The fujinon 35 f1.4 is a good lens, but your comments about leica lenses on the OMD sent me back to review my tests on the x-trans.

Sure OOC, the fuji lenses seem sharper than the leicas. But with a modest amount of PP ( mainly local contrast enhancement) the leicas come up wonderfully.  Tested both the latest 75 apo-summicron and a 1986 vintage 50 summicron.  They draw differently, obviously, and the 75 needs the least amount of PP, but they both produce excellent files. Haven't found any CA issues that others report – yet.

Intending, time permitting, to do further tests later this month – and you got me so worried that I'm going to have to add an eye test to the schedule as well...

In the meantime, just love the simplicity of the x-

All best
M
Title: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: Vladimirovich on August 09, 2013, 04:40:37 pm
find the x-trans sensor produces excellent files.
and so does sony sensor and w/o a x-trans CFA mess which negate all AA filter removal pluses.
Title: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: Telecaster on August 09, 2013, 05:43:48 pm
I don't blame Fuji for 3rd party vendors having some trouble with the X CFA. Decoding of the Bayer matrix c. 2003 wasn't so great either compared with current results. And I'm most emphatically not a proponent of the What We've Got Now Is Good Enough school, so I'm glad Fuji is pushing things with an alternate CF matrix...even if it takes awhile for the various RAW converters to get the best out of it.

As for using Leitz/Leica lenses on the X-E1...that's precisely why I own one. I use it with 21mm Elmarits (both pre- and ASPH versions), 35, 40, 50 & 75mm 'Crons and a 90mm Tele-Elmarit (the small version). All perform very well with no significant CA. I would like a wider option, though...maybe Fuji's 14mm or the wider of the two Zeiss offerings. I've used the Voigtländer 15mm a bit but the results are decidedly meh.

As for the next Olympus...smaller default focus rectangles in AF mode, no un(der)documented features, a tidier menu system, 24fps video, sensor-based PD-AF for FourThirds lenses, proper focus peaking (you can kludge it now via an art filter), a sensor with greater dynamic range and more stuff I currently can't remember.   ;)

-Dave-
Title: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: Manoli on August 09, 2013, 07:14:59 pm
and so does sony sensor

agreed

w/o a x-trans CFA mess which negate all AA filter removal pluses.

broad statement, care to expand ?
both C1, iridient and now even LR are producing, to my eyes, excellent results
Title: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: leuallen on August 09, 2013, 11:46:04 pm
Bcooter,

If I have it right, the dial controls settings you want are Gears-> (B)Button/Dial. When you select Button/Dial there are three choices: Button Function (programmable buttons fn etc), Dial Function (sets which dial does what-f stop and aperture), and Dial Direction (the direction of rotation for change).

Dial direction is not clearly explained and is confusing. I have no idea what the second line in the description means, that is what is probably confusing you. It does not change the Dial Function, only the rotation direction. I have mine set to Dial2 so that when I pull the dial away from the center of the camera it increases exposure. In other words the rear dial is set to f stop and rotating counter clockwise decreases the f stop (2.8->2.0); the front dial is shutter speed and rotating clockwise decreases shutter speed (100->80).

In other words, if I put my finger on the front dial and pull away from the pentaprism, the exposure is increased. If I put my thumb on the rear of the rear dial and pull away from the pentaprism, again the exposure is increased. Logical to me. I don't turn the back dial from the front with my trigger finger - it would screw me up - different directions for same exposure change. I don't change aperture much. GH3 set the same way.

Larry
Title: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: Vladimirovich on August 10, 2013, 12:06:11 am
both C1, iridient and now even LR are producing, to my eyes, excellent results

placebo effect.
Title: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: leuallen on August 10, 2013, 12:11:28 am
The thing I would like most for a new EM-5 is a focus overhaul. Make it behave like the GH3.

1. Back button focus. On the EM-5 if you have a button set to back button focus there is no quick way to switch to half press focus. You must dedicate another button to make the switch. On GH3 it is simplicity itself. If you press the back button focus it focuses and the focus rectangle turns green. Press it again and the green goes away and you can now half press focus. Press it again and it is focused back button.

2. Of course, as everybody mentions, a smaller focus rectangle.

3. Do away with the squares matrix for focus rectangle location. Make it moveable to any screen position. It is this way if you set the small focus option but then you loose the exposure highlight clipping indicators. Make the focus settings independent of any other settings. This is really dumb.

4. Allow touch screen focus positioning when your eye is at the EVF. GH3 has this and I find it useful. I can use my right thumb to move the focus rectangle to an approximate position and then do a slight focus and recompose or fine tune it with the arrow pad.

5. Make focus rectangle adjustments with the arrow pad less skitterish. Press and arrow key and the focus usually shoots all the way across the screen. You have to be very careful to make fine adjustmens.

The above is why I much prefer to work with the GH3

Larry
Title: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: bcooter on August 10, 2013, 03:02:07 am
The thing I would like most for a new EM-5 is a focus overhaul. Make it behave like the GH3.

1. Back button focus. On the EM-5 if you have a button set to back button focus there is no quick way to switch to half press focus. You must dedicate another button to make the switch. On GH3 it is simplicity itself. If you press the back button focus it focuses and the focus rectangle turns green. Press it again and the green goes away and you can now half press focus. Press it again and it is focused back button.

2. Of course, as everybody mentions, a smaller focus rectangle.

3. Do away with the squares matrix for focus rectangle location. Make it moveable to any screen position. It is this way if you set the small focus option but then you loose the exposure highlight clipping indicators. Make the focus settings independent of any other settings. This is really dumb.

4. Allow touch screen focus positioning when your eye is at the EVF. GH3 has this and I find it useful. I can use my right thumb to move the focus rectangle to an approximate position and then do a slight focus and recompose or fine tune it with the arrow pad.

5. Make focus rectangle adjustments with the arrow pad less skitterish. Press and arrow key and the focus usually shoots all the way across the screen. You have to be very careful to make fine adjustmens.

The above is why I much prefer to work with the GH3

Larry

+1
Title: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: bcooter on August 12, 2013, 04:37:16 pm
placebo effect.

I think all processing suites have different looks, usually different defaults, just like cameras cooking the raw for a "look".

We are presently shooting a project using omd's, gh3's, and Canon 1dx(s).

The Canon at times has a better file at very high iso, 25% better, until you put it into a raw processor and fine tune some presets.

Then the difference between the omd for stills vs. the 1dx is almost not apparent for anything up to 1200 iso.

I just shot both cameras, side by side, with continuous sources, same lens equivalents and they're is not a spitting difference between the two files.  The OMD looks sharper, shows a little more noise, the canon looks less sharp and smoother a little less noise, but fine tuning they are equal.

Actually amazes me considering 4/3's is virtually 1/2 a 35mm full frame.

Now with strobe in studio it's a different matter.   The Canon out performs the 4/3's cameras, the phase backs out performs the canons, but that's with a lot of light and flash, though for whatever reason (maybe placebo effect) I think the 4/3's images the subjects look more natural and less posed.



IMO

BC
Title: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: bcooter on August 17, 2013, 04:04:45 am
I'm excited about this camera as it's said it has no AA filter and is slightly physically larger, which the OMD needed.

What I hope, is that they have inputs and outputs for sound, including sound bars on the screen and a much, much, much, much, much more simplified menu system. 

Also a more simplified focus point indicator.  It now needs to be visible when not pressing the button.

One other thing . . . has anyone here ever used a go pro?   We have and I am simply blown away how good the metering system is.   Backlit, in water, out of water, night, day, into the sun, it just seems to always be right.

Whoever designed that meter for Go Pro needs to be hired by  . . . . well everyone.

IMO

BC
Title: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: jjj on August 17, 2013, 07:50:25 pm
One other thing . . . has anyone here ever used a go pro?   We have and I am simply blown away how good the metering system is.   Backlit, in water, out of water, night, day, into the sun, it just seems to always be right.

Whoever designed that meter for Go Pro needs to be hired by  . . . . well everyone.
Yup. My thoughts exactly. I assumed Harry Potter was in charge of the metering myself.
Title: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: bcooter on August 19, 2013, 09:37:16 am
I wonder how they would deal with the differences in flange distance without an adapter? maybe have a movable mount that can shift backwards and forwards?

Well, the new camera is out, or at lest early additions.  Looks like an olympus and panasonic gh3 mated, which is a shame because the omd 3m5 is the prettiest camera I've ever owned.

For stand 4/3 lenses it has an adapter, whether this works well or not the guys that test until they bleed will let us know.

If it works, does better video I'll probably buy it if it really adds something in usefulness,  but man OLY missed a bet by not sticking with the omd 5 look, because everyone I know bought that camera for it's feel and looks.

It is irresistible and maybe I'll buy another one.

IMO

BC
Title: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: OldRoy on August 19, 2013, 03:14:54 pm
For general information:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3534366
There's the usual frantic jabber going on already, principally centred on whether or not the leaks are deliberate. Apparently the "leaked" video has been withdrawn but there are plenty of stills of what appears to be a remarkably ugly little beast, should the aesthetics be your determining criterion.

It seems far more people than I'd imagined own 4/3 lenses. Oddly some of the discussion implies that the on-sensor pdaf only operates with these, but not the native M4/3 lenses - which strikes me as very odd indeed, if true.
Roy
Title: New olympus E-M1 body
Post by: BJL on August 19, 2013, 07:56:05 pm
It is slightly puzzling why so much talk about the leaked OM-D E-M1 body is about its looks --- all I see of note is a deeper handgrip, which makes sense given the typically greater weight of good Four Thirds SLR lenses compared to Micro Four Thirds lenses.

I would expect more discussion of the rumor that the E-M1 follows the recent fashion of having no low pass (AA) filter.


P. S. To OldRoy's comment that "It seems far more people than I'd imagined own 4/3 lenses": there is this strange idea that people gave up on Four Thirds and sold their lenses, no no one has them any more, but even if some of those lenses were sold, I doubt that many lenses were sold to be melted down for scrap: most of them are still owned by someone, even if gathering dust in a closet as mine have mostly been lately. In fact, I think this is the hard market-place reason for the expected somewhat high price of about US$1500: a price premium of $500 over the E-M5 or E-P5 is worth paying for a target market of people who own well over $500 worth of currently under-utilized Four Thirds SLR lenses.

Also, I have not see any evidence of the PDAF working _only_ with Four Thirds (SLR) lenses; only a far greater interest in that use case from people who own such lenses and find them to be effectively "manual focus only" on current MFT bodies. One of my questions instead is to what extent it improves focus tracking with moving subjects, with either MFT or FT lenses.
Title: Re: New olympus E-M1 body
Post by: bcooter on August 20, 2013, 10:13:41 am
It is slightly puzzling why so much talk about the leaked OM-D E-M1 body is about its looks --- all I see of note is a deeper handgrip, which makes sense given the typically greater weight of good Four Thirds SLR lenses compared to Micro Four Thirds lenses.

I would expect more discussion of the rumor that the E-M1 follows the recent fashion of having no low pass (AA) filter.


It seems Olympus went the pansonic gh3 route, which went the mini 5d2 route.  Good functioning camera with less style and yes, style does matter.  it's nice to use something well built and unique and of course the fend result is the final goal, but a Kia will get you to point a to b, but it's not as much fun as some other cars.

I have no doubt that 90% of all omd 5 sales were because of the way the camera looks and feels, because all in all the gh3 is a much more versatile and easier machine to work.

I don't think there is a lot of standard 4/3 lenses out there in people hands, I think there is a lot of standard 4/3 lenses on the companie's shelf.

Might be wrong, but I  know I'm disappointed in the way the omd leaked photos look of the camera.  If I wanted a 5d, 7d whatever those are easy to find.

IMO

BC
Title: Re: New olympus E-M1 body
Post by: SZRitter on August 20, 2013, 10:21:39 am
Also, I have not see any evidence of the PDAF working _only_ with Four Thirds (SLR) lenses; only a far greater interest in that use case from people who own such lenses and find them to be effectively "manual focus only" on current MFT bodies. One of my questions instead is to what extent it improves focus tracking with moving subjects, with either MFT or FT lenses.

Yeah, I don't understand it either. On the looks department, it seems they went ultra ergonomic, so I wouldn't judge a thing until I held one.

The PDAF is my biggest question. Since all AF basically goes back to the sensor and electronics telling the lens where to move, I don't see any reason it wouldn't work. My understanding is that CDAF optimized lenses just have faster motors and lighter lens elements so they can spin them faster. I could be wrong on the lighter elements though.
Title: New olympus E-M1 body: PDAF for 4/3 SLR lenses and tracking focus (C-AF)
Post by: BJL on August 20, 2013, 11:27:38 am
I don't think there is a lot of standard 4/3 lenses out there in people hands ...
Not nearly as many as Canon or Nikon, but Olympus probably did sell a few million Four Thirds SLR bodies, and so a comparable number of lenses, and as I said, even if many of those lenses are currently disused, most of them are probably still sitting in closets, waiting for the right body.

However, PDAF is not only for backward compatibility with SLR lens designs; it also has the promise to improve tracking focus on moving subjects with any lens, which would address the main weakness of the AF on the EM5. With Canon's latest innovation in on-sensor PDAF, I expect a hybrid of CDAF and PDAF to be the best AF solution in the foreseeable future.
Title: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: Mjollnir on August 20, 2013, 11:47:16 am
I think all processing suites have different looks, usually different defaults, just like cameras cooking the raw for a "look".

We are presently shooting a project using omd's, gh3's, and Canon 1dx(s).

The Canon at times has a better file at very high iso, 25% better, until you put it into a raw processor and fine tune some presets.

Then the difference between the omd for stills vs. the 1dx is almost not apparent for anything up to 1200 iso.

I just shot both cameras, side by side, with continuous sources, same lens equivalents and they're is not a spitting difference between the two files.  The OMD looks sharper, shows a little more noise, the canon looks less sharp and smoother a little less noise, but fine tuning they are equal.

Actually amazes me considering 4/3's is virtually 1/2 a 35mm full frame.

Now with strobe in studio it's a different matter.   The Canon out performs the 4/3's cameras, the phase backs out performs the canons, but that's with a lot of light and flash, though for whatever reason (maybe placebo effect) I think the 4/3's images the subjects look more natural and less posed.

IMO

BC

Based on your experience, then, would you conclude that the GH3 is the equivalent, IQ wise, of the OMD?
Title: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: Brian Hirschfeld on August 20, 2013, 12:10:03 pm
Well from the leaked video the new one seems like it'll be a big step up AF wise with the FT lenses which is great since thats really what I want it for.
Title: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: Telecaster on August 20, 2013, 06:20:31 pm
Does anyone actually know what stage of development this camera is in? Current evaluation may be premature both in terms of looks and functionality. The pics I've seen show a rather crude-looking beastie...more like a prototype than a proper pre-pro sample. IMO it's best to reserve judgement until the thing is actually out in the marketplace.

-Dave-
Title: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: Guillermo Luijk on August 20, 2013, 07:12:37 pm
Does anyone actually know what stage of development this camera is in?

Should be officially presented in less than a month.
Title: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: bcooter on August 21, 2013, 03:55:32 am
Based on your experience, then, would you conclude that the GH3 is the equivalent, IQ wise, of the OMD?

I'm not a camera reviewer and I've found cameras are very, very personal, even when judging file quality . . .

Given that I have shot thousands of images, video and stills from the gh3's and OMD's.

To me there not the same cameras regardless of format.  They don't even feel or act like the same format.

The GH3 to me, is like a 5d whatever, just slightly smaller, with much better movies and autofocus.

It's a camera you can pick up, make a few menu selections, like type of still file and size, type of movie file and size and go shoot.

It also feels like a tool.  I don't purposely try to abuse the gh3's but I'm not careful with them either.  I mount them on cars, windows, booms, hand hold, just about everything you can do with a camera.

The evf is great, the wysiwyg viewfinder is great, the handling for a still camera (with the optional grip) great for stills, good for motion.

For motion, they suffer from the dslr type of package which makes smooth handling more difficult, but possible and makes things like the touch screen focus very good, but also more difficult when using one hand to shoot, one to mark focus (but once again doable).

The only downside in video is the bloody run/stop switch.  You either use the recessed one which is hard to use, of set it up for the shutter switch which is easy but also very easy in video to touch it and stop recording.  Since the info on the screen blinks out after a period (I assume there is another setting) you can shoot for 5 minutes, think you've recorded and you haven't.  This isn't just me, everyone that uses the GH3's on my crew have that happen.

The OMD is more like a leica.  Not exactly in the way it handles, but because it's more difficult and the buttons are very small, very sensitive.   A few hours a day will take you a week to get all of your settings right and it has the most complicated, deep, crazy menu in the world, like 20 something settings and 85 layers and if you accidentally hit the wrong button (very easy to do) it goes back to no menu or the main menu and you start over again.

I rarely use the OMD for video because it shoots 60 fps though a nice 60fps, is tricky to set up and has no headphone jack or sound bars for video (a must).

The only thing it has for video that the gh3 doesn't have is great internal stabilization.  If your good and smooth it looks like a bloody stedicam, (seriously).  Nothing I've ever used comes close

The Gh3 also has a better lcd screen and evf.  (not 100% better but better).

_______________________________


For still quality, I thought (and still do) think that the omd makes a sharper, more contrasty and detailed file.

The GH3 file looks like the video (which can be quite beautiful).  The GH3 still file looks deeper, slightly richer and not as sharp, not as contrasty with smoother roll off but it also seems more non pretty noise where the OMD noise is nicer. 

Both go to 800 iso in stills easily, the gh3 much higher in video, but if you know how to process both can go to 1200 without any real loss.

Note:  Now one thing is if you put the OMD lenses on the GH3, instead of their constant 2.8 zooms I usually use, the GH3 looks more like the OMD because the OMD lenses are brutally sharp. 

The thing is I also compared the two before buying.  More than I've ever compared any cameras and really didn't need to buy the OMD, but wanted to.   I love the build quality of it, love the way it looks and I love what I shoot with it.

Maybe it's nostalgia but it looks like a film camera, feels like one, until you get to the bloody 10 million menu settings.

The Gh3's just can't be discounted.  If you want or do shoot video and don't have one, then your missing something.   They are very, very good at video.  If you want to shoot stills they're fine, actually very good, but you can get any smaller dslr and shoot stills and get as good a quality, maybe better, except they are the finest example of an evf I've used.  Actually really, really good.

The OMD, is just different.   I love what I shoot with it.  I've finally learned it until it's intuitive (which like a leica takes time to make it feel like second nature), but it does now.  I also love the 4:3 aspect ratio for verticals and unlike 35mm cameras do not shoot too tight.  It focuses snap on, though doesn't track as well as the gh3, but it does hit focus really, really fast.

Once again, to me they are just very different cameras.    If I had to throw one away it would be the OMD because the gh3's do so much, but I'd really hate not to have it.

Now, the only pixel peeping I've done is next to the canon 1dx.  The 1dx is a great still camera, shoots everything fast and accurately and since I've had 8 1d series, it's second nature, but the difference between the files, at least in what I shoot is about 10%, if that, if you process really, really well.  If you don't you'll think both 4/3's are behind, but if you learn how to move the sliders, they are very good.

One more thing.   With the omd, I've done something I never thought I'd do which is to shoot it from the lcd.   I do it all the time and I frame stills better that way (don't know why) but I see everything and love the framing.

Today did a set up horizontal and pulled the omd lcd out tilting up and shot it like a waist level camera.   The results were nice and I tried to shoot the same angle with the 1dx and never could hit it.

Don't know why other than with the lcd I could view everything and the framing was perfect where with the 1dx like all 35mm cameras, I shoot too squeezed on the sides, but as I said, cameras are very personal.

I know this information doesn't help because neither one will win, (unless you shoot video) but they are both very electronic and do take some time to get use to them.

The OMD takes more thought, the gh3 is easier, the OMD feels better but with the gh3 everything is where it should be (except the video on/off), the gh3 has mic in and out, headphone in and out, a pc connection and well, everything. 

The OMD has a goofy mic input (from the hotshoe) no headphone jack, no sound bars, no real video control (especially when shooting), uses prime lenses which are small and good but also takes me 5 primes to do what two gh3 2.8 lenses do, except go to faster f stops. 

Now I don't really know about the next OMD, but I doubt if I'd buy it.  If it had a new sensor, maybe, or better video  . . . maybe but don't know why because the gh3's really have video covered.


IMO

BC







Title: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: Mjollnir on August 21, 2013, 08:03:08 am
I'm not a camera reviewer and I've found cameras are very, very personal, even when judging file quality . . .

Given that I have shot thousands of images, video and stills from the gh3's and OMD's.

To me there not the same cameras regardless of format.  They don't even feel or act like the same format.

The GH3 to me, is like a 5d whatever, just slightly smaller, with much better movies and autofocus.

It's a camera you can pick up, make a few menu selections, like type of still file and size, type of movie file and size and go shoot.

It also feels like a tool.  I don't purposely try to abuse the gh3's but I'm not careful with them either.  I mount them on cars, windows, booms, hand hold, just about everything you can do with a camera.

The evf is great, the wysiwyg viewfinder is great, the handling for a still camera (with the optional grip) great for stills, good for motion.

For motion, they suffer from the dslr type of package which makes smooth handling more difficult, but possible and makes things like the touch screen focus very good, but also more difficult when using one hand to shoot, one to mark focus (but once again doable).

The only downside in video is the bloody run/stop switch.  You either use the recessed one which is hard to use, of set it up for the shutter switch which is easy but also very easy in video to touch it and stop recording.  Since the info on the screen blinks out after a period (I assume there is another setting) you can shoot for 5 minutes, think you've recorded and you haven't.  This isn't just me, everyone that uses the GH3's on my crew have that happen.

The OMD is more like a leica.  Not exactly in the way it handles, but because it's more difficult and the buttons are very small, very sensitive.   A few hours a day will take you a week to get all of your settings right and it has the most complicated, deep, crazy menu in the world, like 20 something settings and 85 layers and if you accidentally hit the wrong button (very easy to do) it goes back to no menu or the main menu and you start over again.

I rarely use the OMD for video because it shoots 60 fps though a nice 60fps, is tricky to set up and has no headphone jack or sound bars for video (a must).

The only thing it has for video that the gh3 doesn't have is great internal stabilization.  If your good and smooth it looks like a bloody stedicam, (seriously).  Nothing I've ever used comes close

The Gh3 also has a better lcd screen and evf.  (not 100% better but better).

_______________________________


For still quality, I thought (and still do) think that the omd makes a sharper, more contrasty and detailed file.

The GH3 file looks like the video (which can be quite beautiful).  The GH3 still file looks deeper, slightly richer and not as sharp, not as contrasty with smoother roll off but it also seems more non pretty noise where the OMD noise is nicer. 

Both go to 800 iso in stills easily, the gh3 much higher in video, but if you know how to process both can go to 1200 without any real loss.

Note:  Now one thing is if you put the OMD lenses on the GH3, instead of their constant 2.8 zooms I usually use, the GH3 looks more like the OMD because the OMD lenses are brutally sharp. 

The thing is I also compared the two before buying.  More than I've ever compared any cameras and really didn't need to buy the OMD, but wanted to.   I love the build quality of it, love the way it looks and I love what I shoot with it.

Maybe it's nostalgia but it looks like a film camera, feels like one, until you get to the bloody 10 million menu settings.

The Gh3's just can't be discounted.  If you want or do shoot video and don't have one, then your missing something.   They are very, very good at video.  If you want to shoot stills they're fine, actually very good, but you can get any smaller dslr and shoot stills and get as good a quality, maybe better, except they are the finest example of an evf I've used.  Actually really, really good.

The OMD, is just different.   I love what I shoot with it.  I've finally learned it until it's intuitive (which like a leica takes time to make it feel like second nature), but it does now.  I also love the 4:3 aspect ratio for verticals and unlike 35mm cameras do not shoot too tight.  It focuses snap on, though doesn't track as well as the gh3, but it does hit focus really, really fast.

Once again, to me they are just very different cameras.    If I had to throw one away it would be the OMD because the gh3's do so much, but I'd really hate not to have it.

Now, the only pixel peeping I've done is next to the canon 1dx.  The 1dx is a great still camera, shoots everything fast and accurately and since I've had 8 1d series, it's second nature, but the difference between the files, at least in what I shoot is about 10%, if that, if you process really, really well.  If you don't you'll think both 4/3's are behind, but if you learn how to move the sliders, they are very good.

One more thing.   With the omd, I've done something I never thought I'd do which is to shoot it from the lcd.   I do it all the time and I frame stills better that way (don't know why) but I see everything and love the framing.

Today did a set up horizontal and pulled the omd lcd out tilting up and shot it like a waist level camera.   The results were nice and I tried to shoot the same angle with the 1dx and never could hit it.

Don't know why other than with the lcd I could view everything and the framing was perfect where with the 1dx like all 35mm cameras, I shoot too squeezed on the sides, but as I said, cameras are very personal.

I know this information doesn't help because neither one will win, (unless you shoot video) but they are both very electronic and do take some time to get use to them.

The OMD takes more thought, the gh3 is easier, the OMD feels better but with the gh3 everything is where it should be (except the video on/off), the gh3 has mic in and out, headphone in and out, a pc connection and well, everything. 

The OMD has a goofy mic input (from the hotshoe) no headphone jack, no sound bars, no real video control (especially when shooting), uses prime lenses which are small and good but also takes me 5 primes to do what two gh3 2.8 lenses do, except go to faster f stops. 

Now I don't really know about the next OMD, but I doubt if I'd buy it.  If it had a new sensor, maybe, or better video  . . . maybe but don't know why because the gh3's really have video covered.


IMO

BC


Thanks!
The reason I asked is because I've shot Panny for m43 exclusively now for a number of years, love the output for stills I get and LOVE the ergonomics and esp the menus/useability of the rig.

I only shoot stills, and only RAW, however, so vid isn't really part of the equation for me.

My next body will be either the GH3, the new GX7 (which seems to finally be a stills-oriented high end Panasonic) or possibly the OMD, so I'm possibly going to rent at least two of those before I do.

Thanks again for the detailed response.
Title: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: John Camp on August 21, 2013, 12:59:35 pm
I also think the new Oly is ugly, but I have a feeling that it will handle very, very well.

I have a GH3, a GX1 and a Nikon D800,  and find that I don't use the GH3 much, except as a backup for the GX1. On a recent car trip, I never took the GH3 out of the bag. The reason is, I don't shoot video (I understand the GH3 is exceptionally good at that) and I'm usually in one of two places: I want (1) a small discreet camera, or a very small camera, and I'm willing to give up some image quality for that; or I want to maximize image quality. The GH3 is caught between those things: in terms of discretion, the GH3 catches the eye as readily as the D800, but has neither the range or the image quality of the Nikon; in terms of quality, it is not practically that much better than the GX1, while giving up discretion and carry-ability.

I think this will be the problem of the new Oly, at least for me -- it's an in-between camera, without the image quality of a DSLR, and without the discretion of a small m4/3. I'm not sure yet how big it is, but I've been told that it's larger than the earlier model, and from the on-line photos of it, sitting on that guy's hand, it doesn't appear especially small. In fact, I can put the D800 on my own hand, and get about the same image in terms of finger overlap, etc.
Title: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: fike on August 21, 2013, 02:14:49 pm
I am also disappointed (in Olympus and myself for caring) that the EM-1 is not very handsome.  Looks like it was designed by castoff canon engineers that were exiled to soviet siberia.

I like the ability to use Four Thirds lenses. 50-200 f/2.8-3.5 is a great lens that is still somewhat compact and reasonably fast for its relative reach (when combined with 2x crop factor).  This fills out the lens options in a very meaningful way.

I was hoping for a built-in GPS. I like the feature for travel photography. Travel photography is one application where the EM-5's size/performance mix has made it a market leader--even if nobody buys it.

Nobody is talking about the sensor.  It sounds like a very incremental improvement in that area.  No increase in pixel count is reported and no bragging about sensitivity or dynamic range improvements.  Olympus has been known to stay on the same sensor technology for many many years. I guess it is too early to hope the Sony partnership would yield any new and substantial IQ leaps.

I have a myriad of pet peeves that I hope they address:
* viewfinder mode that doesn't overlay shot data
* 2-second delay with 3-frame burst for bracketing
* built-in intervalometer
* eye cup that doesn't fall off constantly
* smaller focus points
* Mysets on the mode dial (didn't see them in video....boo hiss)

Here is the teaser video from engadget, if anyone cares. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmeo2F8ftnI
Title: Re: New olympus E-M1 body: PDAF for 4/3 SLR lenses and tracking focus (C-AF)
Post by: gerafotografija on August 21, 2013, 02:59:01 pm
However, PDAF is not only for backward compatibility with SLR lens designs; it also has the promise to improve tracking focus on moving subjects with any lens, which would address the main weakness of the AF on the EM5. With Canon's latest innovation in on-sensor PDAF, I expect a hybrid of CDAF and PDAF to be the best AF solution in the foreseeable future.

Please correct me if I am wrong about this, but here are my 2 cents.

I thought one of the issues for CDAF only AF is that it tends to overshoot the critical focus lock and has to rack back and forth, which is inefficient. If seems like they can loosen up the focus lock stringency to get a faster "lock", but it may then be less accurate. Something like the RX1 and maybe GR probably have such sharp lenses on a big sensor, that the optimization needs to be for more accuracy rather than fast lock with CDAF.

 The Fuji single PDAF cross assisted CDAF in the X100s and X20 seems to work by allowing a fast and accurate lock when you can use the central cross sensor. Some of the recent DSLRs like the Canon 6d, even though it still has the mirror and separate PDAF sensor array available (if not using live view), seems to also have a single highest sensitivity PDAF sensor cross at the center, which is used in low light situations for a fast lock.

The PDAF sensors can have systematic focus inaccuracies like back focus, but have very consistent time to lock because they are not processing contrast data, they just do a simple phase based alignment - for better or worse.

So, if live-view mirrorless cameras are the way of the future, the only way to ensure both fast and accurate AF is PDAF assisted CDAF. Or CDAF correction of PDAF focus lock, if more PDAF points are made available. A by product of making more PDAF points available would be better continuous tracking performance, which is tough to do with CDAF.

The OMD probably favors fast CDAF instead of accuracy every time. At least I have some proof of this in slightly off focus bird pictures, where the lock wasn't on the part of the bird I intended. This new OMD Hybrid AF should improve performance for both m4/3 and 4/3 glass.

It also looks more like a small DSLR, and so the size advantage is mainly in the lighter/smaller lenses compared to equivalent FF and APSC systems. A small DSLR like the sl1 or 6d if they were redesigned for 4/3 lenses could possibly be competitive with the MILC cameras assuming the EVF takes up more or less the same space as a small pentaprism housing and the mirror scales down well. Extra depth of the body doesnt matter much if you put the deep grip on it. Weight mostly depends on materials, not just volume of the camera and lenses.

For people pictures, I'd rather have a flat grip in a RF style body, since it seems less threatning. Doesn't make much of a difference for other uses though if pocketability is not a design constraint.

 I wouldn't want the extra moving parts though if everything else is equal -- D600 spot issues seem to point towards the fundamental engineering issue with moving mirrors. I guess Sony has a solution for that.

Very interesting times in camera design.
Title: Re: Re: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: Guillermo Luijk on August 21, 2013, 03:36:31 pm
I think this will be the problem of the new Oly, at least for me -- it's an in-between camera, without the image quality of a DSLR, and without the discretion of a small m4/3.

That is not so true. The current OM-D sensor performs better than any Canon DSLR with APS-C sensor, so the new Olympus will.
Title: Re: Re: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: fike on August 21, 2013, 03:46:27 pm
That is not so true. The current OM-D sensor performs better than any Canon DSLR with APS-C sensor, so the new Olympus will.

That is "damning with faint praise."

APS-C Canon's sensors aren't anything worth bragging about.  Every current Nikon APS-C sensor has better IQ than my beloved MFT--Sony too.  We may debate the value of the small differences between the Nikon/Sony sensors versus the Olympus MFT sensor, but there is no debate about the basic measurements of sensitivity, dynamic range and color depth--Olympus loses.  :-[
Title: Re: Re: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: gerafotografija on August 21, 2013, 04:16:57 pm
..., but there is no debate about the basic measurements of sensitivity, dynamic range and color depth--Olympus loses.  :-[

I still like the OMD output, and find it very usable, but I totally agree. All it takes is looking at a few files. There is noise at base ISO, the "high-ISO" processing seems to start at 400, and I get noticeable watercolor effects above 800. There is room for improvement.
Title: Re: Re: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: Guillermo Luijk on August 21, 2013, 05:12:52 pm
That is "damning with faint praise."

APS-C Canon's sensors aren't anything worth bragging about. Every current Nikon APS-C sensor has better IQ than my beloved MFT--Sony too.  We may debate the value of the small differences between the Nikon/Sony sensors versus the Olympus MFT sensor, but there is no debate about the basic measurements of sensitivity, dynamic range and color depth--Olympus loses.  :-[

I have no idea of what is damning with faint praise, but I gave a counterexample to prove that "DSLR is better IQ than Olympus [OM-D]" is not always true, which is what one would think of John's comment. In particular it is false for most Canon DSLR users, and you'll agree that most Canon DSLR users are a big portion of the market. Your opinion about Canon's sensors is irrelevant here, I was talking about facts, not about opinions.
Title: Re: Re: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: fike on August 21, 2013, 05:25:45 pm
I have no idea of what is damning with faint praise, ...

Sorry to use an English idiom.  It means that you are making a compliment that when fully considered isn't really that impressive.  It would be like telling a woman that she was as beautiful as Angela Merkel...despite Merkel's other notable accomplishments, that comparison would not be one most women would appreciate. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damning_with_faint_praise

Back to cameras...while Canon does have a substantial market share, their sensor technology is indisputably inferior to Sony's.  So to say the Olympus MFT sensors are as good as a Canon APS-C is not that impressive a compliment. 
Title: Re: Re: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: Guillermo Luijk on August 21, 2013, 06:15:55 pm
Back to cameras...while Canon does have a substantial market share, their sensor technology is indisputably inferior to Sony's.  So to say the Olympus MFT sensors are as good as a Canon APS-C is not that impressive a compliment.  

Never intended to be impressive though, just wanted to prevent people reading John from thinking that all DSLR's have better IQ than the Olympus. It is not only one or two, thousands of DSLR users have worse IQ than OM-D users, and many seem happy with that.
Title: Re: Re: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: John Camp on August 21, 2013, 07:21:17 pm
Never intended to be impressive though, just wanted to prevent people reading John from thinking that all DSLR's have better IQ than the Olympus. It is not only one or two, thousands of DSLR users have worse IQ than OM-D users, and many seem happy with that.

I was actually talking about full-frame DSLRs, not APS-C. I also think APS-C cameras are in-between cameras, just like the new OLy. That is, for *practical* purposes, they are as large as FF DSLRs, and use lenses that are as large as FF DSLRs, but don't have the image quality of FF cameras. On the other hand, while they are much bigger than m4/3 cameras, especially as systems, the image quality is not *that* much better. So they're in-between. The one good aspect of APS-C cameras is that they're generally cheaper...but the price of FF cameras has been dropping. The D800  is some $5,000 cheaper (less than half) of the cost of the first DSLRs.

I know there are people here who will disagree, but, the GH3 aside (because of its video abilities) I think m4/3 has one key advantage over DSLRs: size. That's size and weight of both high-quality cameras like the up-coming GX7, and size of system. You can quite literally carry a full m4/3 system with two GX bodies in a briefcase. Top-end FF DSLRs have several advantages over the small m4/3 models: image quality, the optical viewfinder, bigger batteries, ergonomics, more extensive systems, ect.

This is considering cameras for use in making prints. If I were only going to show my work on the net , I might be tempted by a compact camera with a  long zoom.
Title: if a tool works very well, it is beautiful
Post by: BJL on August 21, 2013, 09:31:04 pm
I also think the new Oly is ugly, but I have a feeling that it will handle very, very well.
If, as we both expect, the E-M1 handles very well then by [my] definition, it is beautiful. People who judge the appearances of tools in isolation from their functioning risk ending up as Hasselblad Lunar owners.
Title: Re: Re: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: bcooter on August 22, 2013, 01:29:19 am

I know there are people here who will disagree, .....snip........

Yea they will and I had no doubt that this discussion would turn away from the Olympus and to different sensor formats.

If this was the medium format section they'd compare the d800, if it is the general camera section, they'd compare brands of 35, or rangefinders vs. mirrors or something.

I don't get it, but I really spent my career thinking image quality was about a pretty or compelling image.

The reason I bought the mft system was for the video.  To get to a smaller and lighter footprint than the RED 1's I use and to make my life a little easier.

Funny thing is it turns out I am still using the R1's more because of the backend post work and the GH3's less, but the panasonic really shoots great motion imagery.

I just bought the omd because I wanted to and now I like it and like what I shoot with it.

But image quality, DR, pixel depth, file size, detail etc. etc. etc.   I dunno if that matters that much to me because the OMD is already as good as a 1ds which I used time to time and also a P21+ (which I love)  and all for different reasons and it's not to have detail in eyes, 4 blocks away, or go to 1 billion iso, or noiseless, pixeless, lifeless skin,  though honestly I don't think any camera goes to that high an iso without something suffering.  

Also where does this iso thing come from?  I just shot the OMD and the D1x with profoto flash today, same equivelent lens, 45mm on the omd, 90mm on the 1dx and what is right at 200 iso on the omd is almost 400 iso on the 1dx.

I tried it a few times to be sure, but really . . . is that important?  I mean I craft photography and if the light sucks I fix it, if I can't fix it I do something else, but even the R1 which has a billion stops of DR I crush down to try to make look like film.

Anyway, one thing I've noticed is the omd is less overpowering than a 1dx or a larger camera. Don't just measure them, but put them in use, they are much different and to a subject, even professional talent much less imposing.  I think it shows a difference, but that could always be wishful thinking.

Honestly all that matters to me is a pretty photograph and a week ago I was looking at the AIGA archives.

http://designarchives.aiga.org/#/entries/photography/_/grid/relevance/asc/112/112/90

(for search just type in photography).

Some of the work from friends past and present and noticed how I could almost tell what was film, what was new digital, because new digital was as smooth as a baby's bottom and film looked kind of  . . . you know........ like film.

Film looked important to me.

Anyway, I also went off track.

I'm not saying the omd is film like, or perfect, in fact it's a major pita sometimes, but I dig using it.  Will use it on a gig tomorrow and Friday.

Actually one thing I've noticed about going through those older AIGA archive images is today, we use the term "great" way too often.


IMO

BC


Title: Re: Re: Re: if a tool works very well, it is beautiful
Post by: Guillermo Luijk on August 22, 2013, 03:23:27 am
If, as we both expect, the E-M1 handles very well then by [my] definition, it is beautiful. People who judge the appearances of tools in isolation from their functioning risk ending up as Hasselblad Lunar owners.

If the beauty of a car, house, dressing, meal, smartphone,... is an added value beyond its practical function, why should a camera be different?. People liking their cameras feel more comfortable with them, enjoy them more and surely that translates into more and better pictures taken.
Title: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: bcooter on August 22, 2013, 10:03:19 am
This is the lunar

(http://images.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/04/IMG_1778.jpg)

This is the omd

(http://img.favcars.com/aston-martin/db5/aston-martin_db5_1963_images_5.jpg)

To me this is a modern dslr

(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRH98bc8GwZlXpaV_4JQC9UwlIsem_g3NvYWsPtvrPtZ5WAeBBz)

IMO
BC
Title: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: Craig Lamson on August 22, 2013, 11:48:52 am
This is the lunar

(http://images.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/04/IMG_1778.jpg)

This is the omd

(http://img.favcars.com/aston-martin/db5/aston-martin_db5_1963_images_5.jpg)

To me this is a modern dslr

(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRH98bc8GwZlXpaV_4JQC9UwlIsem_g3NvYWsPtvrPtZ5WAeBBz)

IMO
BC

Nice comparison BC.

I bought the OM-D for fun, not because I needed it.  I looked at it and did remind me of days gone by, of 35 cameras like the OM or a Minolta, or an FM-2. It felt really good in my hand.  My only regret is I did not get the black and silver.

But boy are you right about the menus :)

All told I really do love shooting that thing, not for work because it does not fit my profile for that well, but just for fun.  And quite frankly after shooting for over 30 years to live, shooting for fun again is..well..fun.

I just might buy that black and silver...just because.
Title: Re: Re: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: Martin Ranger on August 22, 2013, 12:29:50 pm
Anyway, one thing I've noticed is the omd is less overpowering than a 1dx or a larger camera. Don't just measure them, but put them in use, they are much different and to a subject, even professional talent much less imposing.  I think it shows a difference, but that could always be wishful thinking.

I have noticed the same with the X-E1. The subjects seem more relaxed and comfortable, prefessional and non-professional alike. Particularly with portraits, the smaller cameras seem to get less in the way between me and my subjects. Also, no-one has ever told me my camera was "super-cute" when working with the Nikons  :)
Title: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: fike on August 22, 2013, 02:59:18 pm
Depending on what you are trying to do, a camera that looks less intimidating may be an advantage or a disadvantage. I find that people take me less seriously when I am shooting with the OM-D (compared to shooting the giant 7D and 24-105).  If you are shooting an event where you need to direct people and look "in-charge," I think a big DSLR may be a better tool.  If you are shooting street photography, I think the OM-D ends up being superior for the reasons mentioned above.
Title: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: bcooter on August 24, 2013, 05:43:10 pm
Depending on what you are trying to do, a camera that looks less intimidating may be an advantage or a disadvantage. I find that people take me less seriously when I am shooting with the OM-D (compared to shooting the giant 7D and 24-105).  If you are shooting an event where you need to direct people and look "in-charge," I think a big DSLR may be a better tool.  If you are shooting street photography, I think the OM-D ends up being superior for the reasons mentioned above.

I like industrial strength cameras.  The RED 1 being my favorite, as it feels military grade, works for me without a glitch under some really hellish situations.

Still, I like these panasonic and olympus mft cameras.  I didn't chose them for size, though the gh3 is really a perfect sized 35mm camera (IMO). 

I chose them for use, as we shoot ever project motion and stills, with priorities shifting per creative brief.

 The gh3 is the most capable camera I've ever used.  It shoots video with quality that just doesn't match it's specs.  Yesterday in very harsh 12 stop different light, it held areas that it shouldn't, didn't bloom and I really use these gh3s without a thought.

The olympus omd, I have mixed thoughts on.  It's pretty, shoots a very good still, but I know it will never be second nature to me.  It's just a little off, a little not there for really heavy duty work.

In a given day I will touch and block out two RED 1's, two Gh3's and a Canon 1dx.   All of these cameras are intuitive to me and I don't have to think to find a setting.  The OMD is different because the menus are so complicated and layered, the buttons so elegent but tiny, that I never feel secure when I shoot it under pressure. 

Messing around it's great.  The still image is great.   The motion image is challanged.

The new OMD I hope will be a gh3 in olympus skin.   At least it has the look of good build quality, slightly larger dials and a mic import slot, two sd cards and I hope more video settings.  I know the newer photos posted make the camera look much better with elegant design and I love nice design.

(http://i1266.photobucket.com/albums/jj524/picrumors/picrumors127/lb05VRa_zpsc0003aec.jpg)

I read these rumors all the time that some mirrorless cameras are not meeting sales expectations and will be financially challanged. 

I hope not, because these cameras have a great place in professional world and I don't think about sensor dimensions anymore.   Whether it's a 16x9, 2:1, 4:3, 2:3 ratio, just doesn't enter my head as long as there is a lens set to match.  In other words f2.8 is the minimum fast lens for micro four thirds, though they really should be 2.0 or 1.4.

Since the start of digital it seems that we've been slowly getting back to where we were with film, but unfortunately in increments. 

What is needed from any brand, any format is a varied lens set, controls that are intuitive, viewfinders that allow you to manually or autofocus with confidence. 

Digital capture has always seemed to cloud the basics, from frame size, viewfinders, just good cameras that will work and last.

One reasons I stick with the Canon systems isn't because I own lenses, or because I think they have more detail, but because I know them and they tend to work like film cameras except for one glaring fault, you can't really manually focus the lenses on moving subjects because it seems all ovf 35mm cameras have a different and strange viewfinder.

The thing I like about the mirrorless cameras, especially the gh3 is I can look through the finder, focus and shoot.  I can do this with the RED 1's, my older contax with phase backs, but other cameras . . . no.

I think mirrorless offers us the possiblities to do things like we never did before, or at minimum as well as we did before.

(http://i1266.photobucket.com/albums/jj524/picrumors/picrumors127/gDlFTTX_zps4a61eea7.jpg)

IMO

BC



Title: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: BJL on August 24, 2013, 08:25:17 pm
I know the newer photos posted make the camera look much better with elegant design ...
...
What is needed from any brand, any format is a varied lens set, controls that are intuitive, viewfinders that allow you to manually or autofocus with confidence.  
(http://i1266.photobucket.com/albums/jj524/picrumors/picrumors127/gDlFTTX_zps4a61eea7.jpg)
Lots of good comments there.

Firstly, for those who care, the internet forum consensus seems to be that the E-M1 looks better with its clothes on: the lens and body look like an utterly functional pair.

Secondly, your three criteria for a good system make a lot of sense to me.

Thirdly, the second image shows that the knob at the (photographers's) left has an HDR setting: any comments or speculation?

Fourthly, is that 12-40 the widest ratio of focal lengths for a constant f/2.8 wide-to-telephoto lens? I do not know of a 24-80/2.8. Hopefully, Olympus has pushed lens design forward but without the bravura excesses of its constant f/2 zoom designs for Four Thirds SLRs, which made them crazy expensive.
Title: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: Vladimirovich on August 24, 2013, 09:09:07 pm
Thirdly, the second image shows that the knob at the (photographers's) left has an HDR setting: any comments or speculation?

suggest RTFM. for example e-pm2 or e-pl5 manuals or proper review of such cameras
Title: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: Vladimirovich on August 24, 2013, 09:16:23 pm
The new OMD I hope will be a gh3 in olympus skin. 
no articulating LCD... it is sad because Olymus could just use E-x series design scaled down to remove mirror, etc... w/ proper dials in-body (instead on top of it) leaving more space for Fn buttons, with articulating LCD, etc.
Title: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: Telecaster on August 25, 2013, 05:33:32 pm
The E-M1 does look better, properly finished, in these latest pics. I'm sold now...bought an Olympus 4/3 50-200mm to go with the upcoming 12-40mm. A nice, relatively fast two-lens combo. Hope the camera's PD-AF is up to the task with the 50-200. It should be a more suitable host to the fast Voigtländer lenses too. Just got the new 42.5/0.95 and it's a bit overbearing (as is the 17.5mm) on the E-M5.

I believe the E-M1's rear LCD does articulate if not fully in the manner of the GH cameras. We shall see...maybe the video footage briefly available showed this and I've forgotten the details.

Lotsa stuff happening in the m43 world...fun! Wish that Blackmagic Pocket Cinecam would show up, though.

-Dave-
Title: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: Vladimirovich on August 25, 2013, 06:54:28 pm
I believe the E-M1's rear LCD does articulate if not fully in the manner of the GH cameras.

that does not show any capability to articulate, only tilt

(http://imageshack.us/a/img818/8189/otvx.jpg)
Title: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: BJL on August 25, 2013, 07:10:58 pm
The E-M1 does look better, properly finished, in these latest pics.
...
I believe the E-M1's rear LCD does articulate if not fully in the manner of the GH cameras.
We seem to agree on the facts if not the words: it tilts like on the E-M5, but cannot twist on a hinge at the left. So it is less capable for verticals, but for horizontals, I prefer having the screen stay under the other controls, rather than sticking out at the left. So I am sure there will be debate about which is better, depending on peoples' usage patterns and tastes.

As to looking better: I am wondering now if this shows that a well posed and lit marketing still can make the subject look more desirable than a few frame grabs from a journalist's video!?
Title: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: bcooter on August 25, 2013, 08:38:10 pm

As to looking better: I am wondering now if this shows that a well posed and lit marketing still can make the subject look more desirable than a few frame grabs from a journalist's video!?

Maybe.  But I think they messed up in marketing.  A lot of people warmed to the omd 5 because it was pretty and retro and the video that was linked was a bad mock up.  

Freaked people out.

I think these size cameras have a place.  Actually I don't understand why full frame 35mm cameras are so large considering how small the ovf is.

Olympus needs to sell cameras in a cell phone world and they have to make up there mind what they're selling.  If it's professional, it needs fast lenses, sound in and out, (whether you like video or not), clean iso to 1500 or so.

The GH3 is a mini 5d clone, but is capable.  Really capable and works right out of the bag.

But all makers gotta stop messing around with this 2 year and out upgrade stuff.

I'll buy the new omd right now and their new lenses some of they're older 43s, if they hit the mark, have sound in and out, a real adjustable video file, actually all the usability of the gh3, but if they only have part, then panasonic gets my money.

Oh yea, and Olympus needs someone from the planet earth to write their menu system.

I think there is a great place for these 4/3 cameras.  They may look small next to the cameras from Canon and Nikon, but put them next to a 35mm film camera and they're about the same size.

(http://tkysstd.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/GHthree_04.jpg)

I'm sure even on the high end the hesitation to buy the newest is felt.

With RED.  I have two R1's, bought a Scarlet, ordered but cancelled the Epic because I used the R1's all the time, the Scarlet sets in the case for numerous reasons.

Same with these 4:3's.   They could offer a 3k or 4k video file to outdo black magic,  charge another grand or so, offers upgrade services (like RED which is very smart) and keep a lot of people in the fold for a long time.

But trying to sell anything because they held basic features back and will offer them later, just isn't a positive way to sell.

IMO

BC
Title: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: Telecaster on August 26, 2013, 02:40:35 pm
Size-wise I think Marc hit on one aspect of it...the "bigger is better" impression cameras make on paying customers who don't know from cameras. The big bulk-up in the 35mm world is a fairly recent phenomenon aside from, say, an F3 with a motor drive attached. Even my Nikon D300 is bigger than any 35mil film SLR I've ever owned. No motor drive in any digicam I know of.  :D  I suppose the increasing popularity of long & fast lenses, once AF came on the scene, had something to do with it too...the need for better gripping and more even lens/body balance. In the end I can't help but suspect the "look at my big..." factor has played more than a tiny part. After all, that factor surely explains whole swathes of human behavior across the spectrum.

It does seem a shame to waste a 16mp (or more) sensor on 1920x1080 video. Camera makers could at least take every four-photosite matrix and generate one true-color video pixel from it. Come to think of it, why the hell hasn't Adobe offered this as an alternate RAW conversion technique for stills for the past eight years or so?!

-Dave-
Title: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: bcooter on August 26, 2013, 03:18:29 pm
Size-wise I think Marc hit on one aspect of it...the "bigger is better" impression cameras make on paying customers who don't know from cameras. The big bulk-up in the 35mm world is a fairly recent phenomenon aside from, say, an F3 with a motor drive attached. Even my Nikon D300 is bigger than any 35mil film SLR I've ever owned. No motor drive in any digicam I know of.  :D  I suppose the increasing popularity of long & fast lenses, once AF came on the scene, had something to do with it too...the need for better gripping and more even lens/body balance. In the end I can't help but suspect the "look at my big..." factor has played more than a tiny part. After all, that factor surely explains whole swathes of human behavior across the spectrum.

It does seem a shame to waste a 16mp (or more) sensor on 1920x1080 video. Camera makers could at least take every four-photosite matrix and generate one true-color video pixel from it. Come to think of it, why the hell hasn't Adobe offered this as an alternate RAW conversion technique for stills for the past eight years or so?!

-Dave-
Crazy thing is if you shoot a medium format back, 16 to 22 mpx still dslr, or even the 4/3 16mp and put them in a 10bit editorial suite, you will see a huge difference as you go down the line.

I don't know why, but I know you will, because I do it all the time.  Go figure.

__________________________________________________


For high production, bigger is better.  If someone says client's don't care about equipment, they're not talking to my clients.  I'd love to shoot everything I do from one case and a tripod, but can't.

It's funny, when we mount the R-1's with PL glass everyone goes ohhh.  Set up a scarlet with a Canon mount and nobody notices, so there is something to be said about big.

But if you work with crews and production, 10,000 lbs of equipment pretty much gives the impression of big, regardless of cameras.

But we use the smaller 4/3 cameras when we have to, inside a car, hand held for fast cutaways, but the gh3 is so good, you can shoot it as an a cam and it works very well in most instances.

______________________________


Why hasn't Adobe offered alternative processing?  Why hasn't adobe came out with a video software suite that colors and tones with the interface of lightroom?

I guess, nobody would buy into the larger more expensive creative suites.

IMO

BC
Title: Re: New olympus body coming up question
Post by: Telecaster on August 26, 2013, 05:35:00 pm
Why hasn't Adobe offered alternative processing? Why hasn't adobe came out with a video software suite that colors and tones with the interface of lightroom?

I guess, nobody would buy into the larger more expensive creative suites.

IMO

Yeah. I've got no problem really with upselling (though I may grumble at times about it), but in this case Adobe doesn't have anything to upsell to. You want to decode a four-photosite Bayer matrix into one RGB pixel? You can...but you have to use some other vendor's RAW processor. Maybe this is an artifact of our obsession with spatial detail. Maybe the people Adobe listens to aren't telling them the sort of things I'd tell them.   :)  Or maybe they're bullheaded enough to think they just know better. Maybe they even do know better... Nah.

Anyway, I do think Olympus would pull off a good one if the E-M1 did video with Panasonic GH-style control & capability plus Oly's lovely IBIS. For my strictly fun-oriented needs that would trump the Blackmagic PCC.

-Dave-