Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: lensjack on January 20, 2014, 02:12:56 pm
-
Michael's field report and review plus other evals have me leaning towards this little Oly as the core of a travel kit suited to my needs. (Good IS is essential.) But I've got questions still, and would be grateful for feedback from users:
1) I've read that Oly service and repair cannot compare to Canon's (my primary system), and routinely takes four to six weeks. Anyone have experience with this? I'm in Los Angeles. Where would I send or take Oly gear for service?
2) I'm looking at the (back-ordered) 12-40 f/2.8 as my primary travel lens, with maybe the 75mm f/1.8 as a companion. Traveling light is key, so it's unlikely I'd want more than two lenses. Has anyone traveled extensively with this combo? Thoughts?
Thanks for whatever insights you can offer.
-
Michael's field report and review plus other evals have me leaning towards this little Oly as the core of a travel kit suited to my needs. (Good IS is essential.) But I've got questions still, and would be grateful for feedback from users:
1) I've read that Oly service and repair cannot compare to Canon's (my primary system), and routinely takes four to six weeks. Anyone have experience with this? I'm in Los Angeles. Where would I send or take Oly gear for service?
2) I'm looking at the (back-ordered) 12-40 f/2.8 as my primary travel lens, with maybe the 75mm f/1.8 as a companion. Traveling light is key, so it's unlikely I'd want more than two lenses. Has anyone traveled extensively with this combo? Thoughts?
Thanks for whatever insights you can offer.
I don't know about Olympus repairs, but a dealer would.
The 12-40 is a good lens but doesn't out perform the panasonic 12 to 35 and that's cheaper and more available, though I know of multiple places the 12-40 is sold.
Personally, I'd look at oly primes and a small messenger bag. The 12, 17, 45 are all very small, probably in total the size of the 12-40 zoom. The 75 is larger, heavier but very good.
Another option might be the em-5. It's now selling below $700 which is about 1/2 the price of the em-1. I think it produces as good if not a better file and it only lacks a little higher iso, and by some peoples measure track focusing, though I'm not sure of that.
Then you would have two bodies that are light weight and the ability to mount two lenses.
just a thought.
BC
-
Another option might be the em-5. It's now selling below $700 which is about 1/2 the price of the em-1.
BC
Thats great, but where ( in USA )? I searched online and only saw it for $799 at BH Photo etc, if you can share your source that would be appreciated.
Also, has anyone used the Olympus 25mm f2.8 pancake lens? Is it sharp wide open? ( http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/549015-REG/Olympus_261059_25mm_f_2_8_ED_Zuiko.html ) or the Sigma 30mm F2.8 lens? ( http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/918900-REG/sigma_30mm_f_2_8_dn_for.html )
-
Thanks, BC. This morning Olympus replied to my direct query, saying all U.S. service goes to El Paso and turnaround currently runs 7-10 days from receipt. Bit of a change from my Canon experience -- two service centers within driving distance; faster turnaround -- but not a deal-breaker.
I appreciate your lens recommendations. I'll look at those primes more closely now, especially the 17. I do not want to carry two lensed-up bodies. That would almost defeat my intention to travel lighter and simpler than my full-frame gear allows.
If anyone here has had direct experience with Olympus service, I remain grateful to know. And though I've read many lens reviews, I'm still eager to hear feedback from anyone who has traveled with an Oly E-M and a couple of lenses. Were you happy with the results? Wish you'd chosen differently, etc.?
-
If anyone here has had direct experience with Olympus service, I remain grateful to know.
you shall visit hoi polloi forums (dpreview - both m43 and 43 subforums, etc), there are reports about Olympus service experience there, many.
-
Olympus repair is now farmed out to Presision Camera. I have had both excellent service and service that took a bit of follow up to resolve. In the latter case it was resolved to my satisfaction. Just like your car repair sometimes things go smoothly sometime not but in the end it works out.
-
Thats great, but where ( in USA )? I searched online and only saw it for $799 at BH Photo etc, if you can share your source that would be appreciated.
Also, has anyone used the Olympus 25mm f2.8 pancake lens? Is it sharp wide open? ( http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/549015-REG/Olympus_261059_25mm_f_2_8_ED_Zuiko.html ) or the Sigma 30mm F2.8 lens? ( http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/918900-REG/sigma_30mm_f_2_8_dn_for.html )
That 43 rumors site shows deals under $700. Now whether they are legit or not I don't know, but I'll bet you can buy one lightly used from KEH for a good price.
IMO
BC
-
you shall visit hoi polloi forums (dpreview - both m43 and 43 subforums, etc), there are reports about Olympus service experience there, many.
Thanks. I avoid many online discussion sites because of rampant incivility and thread hijacking. Michael sets a higher standard here, which is why I've followed this site for years. But I did find helpful insights where you steered me. Much appreciated.
-
Olympus repair is now farmed out to Presision Camera. I have had both excellent service and service that took a bit of follow up to resolve. In the latter case it was resolved to my satisfaction. Just like your car repair sometimes things go smoothly sometime not but in the end it works out.
Precision Camera in Austin, Ned? Is Olympus sending stuff there from El Paso for repair? (If you know.) Thanks.
-
Thanks, BC.
I appreciate your lens recommendations. I'll look at those primes more closely now, especially the 17. I do not want to carry two lensed-up bodies. That would almost defeat my intention to travel lighter and simpler than my full-frame gear allows.
I spent a morning yesterday with the EM1 and really enjoyed it. I used the 12-40 2.8 plus my own 25mm Voightlander, Pan 14mm and an Oly 45mm 1.8. My main purpose was to try it for the video as I assume the Image quality for stills will be excellent. Unfortunately I shot in RAW and of course when I got home my version of Lightroom would not open the files! Need to upgrade....
However I do agree with Cooter that these cameras really are good with the small light prime lenses, and for me shooting with two bodies really does work - especially in situations where you have to react quickly. You did say the camera was for travel photography and of course that could mean a day out or a longer trip. If the latter, surely you would take a spare body anyway. That also gets round any waiting for servicing.
Jim
-
I bought an EM1 recently to use with Zuiko 12-60 SWD and a 50-200 mm SWD. It is a really fantastic camera...the IQ with those lenses anyway is quite amazing. The autofocus with these lenses is not quite a good as with earlier 4/3s cams - but it is VERY good. On servicing. I've used Olympus for a number of years and their repair work/dept. is very good. They had to close (temporarily?) one of their repair centers (don't know if it was Cypress, CA loc. - didn't ask) a couple of years ago...so it takes a little longer. I used to get routine things like sensor cleaning/focus checks returned in about a week and half...now prob. about 3-4. I live in NYC so sometimes I would just drive out to Hauppauge repair center and drop off...sometimes they do diagnostic while I was there. Based on my experience - Oly is very good. If I were going to buy a basic zoom travel lens - I would most definitely get the Zuiko 12-40 PRO...I'm not sure about the 75mm (??) as the companion lens...for traveling would most likely get the Panasonic 35-200mm f2.8 at link. /B
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/892457-REG/Panasonic_h_hs35100_35_100mm_f_2_8_Lumix_G.html (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/892457-REG/Panasonic_h_hs35100_35_100mm_f_2_8_Lumix_G.html)
-
Precision Camera in Austin, Ned? Is Olympus sending stuff there from El Paso for repair? (If you know.) Thanks.
The one in El Paso. Just Google camera repair El Paso TX and it will come up.
-
These are the two Oly repair centers listed at bottom of PDF - Oly doesn't send cams to El Paso as far as I know??...
http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/repair_pdfs/checklist.pdf (http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/repair_pdfs/checklist.pdf)
-
I spent a morning yesterday with the EM1 and really enjoyed it. I used the 12-40 2.8 plus my own 25mm Voightlander, Pan 14mm and an Oly 45mm 1.8. My main purpose was to try it for the video as I assume the Image quality for stills will be excellent. Unfortunately I shot in RAW and of course when I got home my version of Lightroom would not open the files! Need to upgrade....
However I do agree with Cooter that these cameras really are good with the small light prime lenses, and for me shooting with two bodies really does work - especially in situations where you have to react quickly. You did say the camera was for travel photography and of course that could mean a day out or a longer trip. If the latter, surely you would take a spare body anyway. That also gets round any waiting for servicing.
Jim
The olympus 12-40 is a prettier design than the panasonic 12-35, though I couldn't really tell the difference between the quality of the two and since I own two of the 12 to 35mm 2.8 panas I didn't buy the oly version, but one reason is I don't like zooms and 2.8 is just too limiting on these 4/3 cameras. The slowest should be f2 and everybody has their own style, but I firmly believe zooms affect the way you work.
It's a hassel but I'd much rather just use primes and that's pretty easy in the size fo m43 lenses, though somebody really, really, really, really needs to make a 100mm f2 or faster lens for this format.
As I've said before the em-1 is a better camera than the em-5 but the em-5 shoots prettier, though I haven't explored the em-1 as much as i would like.
One thing the em-1 does fairly well is video. Much better than the em-5, much better than the sony A7 and A7r, though not as good as the panasonic gh3 and the em-1 is still locked in 30 fps and 60 hz which means flicker in practical lights in europe.
A lot of photographers raised in the digital age don't know how film looked. To them the standard look is Canon on nikon dslrs which are somewhat overly smooth and somewhat global in color. Also digital tends to pick up a great deal of ambient color. In other words a brown room makes for a brown photo, even with specific lighting. The olympus look more like film, in the fact film was kind of dumb. It saw what it saw and didn't usually pick up ambient color. Also with film, once you learned a specific film you knew how it would react regardless of setting. (That one is hard to explain but you know it when you see it).
As I mentioned I'm now processing a thousand stills mostly from the canon 1dx some for the em-5 and get to a olympus file it's just a few seconds of corrections and the color is not global it's specific. The 1dx file in the same setting takes more work, if your deceserning in the look you want to achieve.
Now this one blows me away. i'm usually not one to say this camera costs less than that camera, but for a $1,200 camera (the em-5 I bought new) vs. a $6,000 Canon there should be a difference titled towards the higher price and in image quality there isn't, it's the other way. maybe the Canon has a fraction more noise reduction and a fraction more detail (on this I'm really not sure), but the look is not near as nice or specific . . . or film like.
Obviously olympus is on to something good, because Sony and Fuji have tried to emulate the look. I don't think they'll hit the built quality, but the looks like a camera style seems to have caught on.
I hope Olympus takes this another step forward, staying with m43 but upping their lens offerings and more controllable video.
I'm sure there is pressure to go full frame, but so far I haven't seen anything to suggest the full frame cameras have anything on the olympus, but if they do, I think they should go all the way and go larger than 35mm for a super omd, something like a Leica S2 size.
IMO
BC
-
Thanks, all, for your invaluable insights. I appreciate your help. I just took the plunge on an E-M 1 plus the 12-40 and the 75 because Olympus has a promotion going where you get $200 off on each of those lenses if you buy the body. Lucky timing.
BC -- As a fellow 1D X shooter, I will be fascinated to compare out-of-camera looks as you suggest. I really appreciate your insights.
Brandtb & Ned -- I'm wondering if that form is out of date. Cypress, CA, would be great for me, but the email I received from Olympus when I asked about service options said: "The address for the service center for all the USA is:
Olympus Service
11500 Rojas Drive, Suite J
El Paso, TX 79936"
And Ned seems quite certain about Precision. In any case, I'm hoping I never (or at least rarely) need to find out.
Jim -- I will indeed take a second body on long trips, but it's unlikely I'd spring for a second Oly. I'll be traveling on vacation with my wife. When I've carried a full-frame body, she has kindly lugged a G1 X for backup, and I'll still rely on that if the Oly goes south because we're just looking to stockpile memories, not capture for anyone but ourselves and our friends. On long trips, I'm hoping to scale down the size and weight of my gear. I think (hope) this new kit will do the trick.
-
Wow...a bit surprised about the Oly service shift...haven't used them in a while....loved the people in Long Island facility...hope as good in TX if I need them
-
Personally, I think the 12-40 makes prime lenses in that range redundant. The edge-to-edge sharpness is well documented but the whole look is really nice (colour, contrast, highlight control, rendition of out of focus areas etc). F2.8 is absolutely ample for most needs but there are those people who want extreme out of focus blur, who will maybe only be satisfied by the 75/1.8! Actually, out-of-focus rendition is really nice with the 12-40 and, surprisingly, the other lens in my "travel kit", the 75-300 zoom. An EM1, the 12-40 zoom and a longer lens to taste make an excellent, portable, high quality travel kit. If you want a second body, for whatever reason, there are now many cheap m4/3 bodies to choose from, some of which are tiny.
Don
-
Personally, I think the 12-40 makes prime lenses in that range redundant.
except there are many people who prefer sometimes/often/always to use just one small prime on camera instead of big (big in our m43 world) zoom (now I use hoods always, do you ? that adds sizewise - I do not like to have that 12-40 + hood schlong hanging from my neck ready to be used)... that's a matter of preferences, so here is mine.
-
except there are many people who prefer sometimes/often/always to use just one small prime on camera instead of big (big in our m43 world) zoom (now I use hoods always, do you ? that adds sizewise - I do not like to have that 12-40 + hood schlong hanging from my neck ready to be used)... that's a matter of preferences, so here is mine.
Size all depends on your frame of reference. Compared to the Canon 24-70 I used to use, the 12-40 is tiny. Compared to any SLR I've had hanging off my neck, the combination is very light. Compared to my EP1 and the 17/2.8 I regret selling, or my Canon G1X, sure it's bigger and won't fit in the same bag but it doesn't feel worse after a day around my neck. I do fully understand your preference in terms of size/weight, in which case the EM1 is probably the wrong m4/3 camera anyway.
I'm not sure I understand you hood schlong comment. The hood never comes off my lens because it is so compact and light it doesn't matter. Plus, carrying cameras around ready to use, I have found the physical protection of a hood great insurance!
-
I have the 12–40mm, Pana/Leica 25/1.4 and Oly 75mm in my E-M1 bag (a Domke F803 satchel). That's all I need for travel. (At least I'll finally be putting this to the test in the near future.) Substitute the E-M5 for the E-M1 if you like...I keep going back & forth.
-Dave-
-
I have the 12–40mm, Pana/Leica 25/1.4 and Oly 75mm in my E-M1 bag (a Domke F803 satchel). That's all I need for travel. (At least I'll finally be putting this to the test in the near future.) Substitute the E-M5 for the E-M1 if you like...I keep going back & forth.
-Dave-
I can understand the lure of a zoom and the beauty of m43 is the lenses seem larger than the sensor so you have good sharpness edge to edge if that's what your looking for.
The thing with me and zooms are they send me crazy. The only way I can work a zoom properly is to decide on what prime lens I want it to be, let's say a 35mm (17 in 43 terms) and leave it as a 35mm which doesn't do me much good given the zooms are slower. Remember a 2.8 in this format gives the same wide open look as f4 in full frame 35mm terms.
The only zoom I use with regularity is the 35 to 100 pana (70 to 200 in 35mm terms) and I keep it set on 100 so if they made a 100mm f2 lens I'd buy it now.
But with the other oly primes from 12 to 74 and one pana 24 the total size and weight isn't much more than a single zoom and they seem sharper and obviously are faster.
____________________
Slightly off topic but I've mentioned I've shot the em-5 next to my 1dx. It shows more noise, maybe very slightly less resolution, (though that's debatable), but today processing out a series of images in lightroom I had 4 selects of the same scene with the 1dx and 4 selects of the same scene with the em-5. Same point of view, virtually same shot, except when I processed out the 1dx files the windows were blown out white, even when I tried to process a second image for blending and dropped the exposure 4 stops in lightroom the windows were still white.
When I started on the em-5 images, I noticed detail in the windows and moving the light setting to dark which didn't effect the main subject total detail came through the window.
Now this blows me away. I can't believe a little camera like this can produce more lattitude than the 1dx.
I really think olympus is on to something and these little cameras shoot way above their fighting weight.
Now maybe it's lightroom, but as I've been working this set of 357 images for the last few days, when I look down and see the .orf prefix I kind of smile because in lightroom hitting specific color and getting a film like look takes me 1/3 of the time that it does the 1dx. Now I know the 1dx processed in dpp will make a better file, but I'm under deadline and working back and forth between processors is a pain and let's be honest lightroom has a very detailed and comprehensive interface.
But back to your original posters question of the omd em-1. It's a good camera and any sharp lens will give great results, but if you get the chance try an em-5 next to the em-1. The em-5 really produces an amazingly good file andI kind of think olympus knows this because they keep selling the em-5.
Adding a ev-4 viewfinder makes the both cameras a lot more usable.
IMO
BC
-
These are the two Oly repair centers listed at bottom of PDF - Oly doesn't send cams to El Paso as far as I know??...
http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/repair_pdfs/checklist.pdf (http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/repair_pdfs/checklist.pdf)
I just had a rather lengthy service experience with Olympus that involved a lost product and a hole in their process. The end result was a brand new unit to replace one that was misplaced but eventually found. Turned out well in the end. The New York and California centers have been closed for awhile. Regarding Presision Camera, when I checked my repair status the screen said Olympus but the url went to Presision Camera.
-
Personally, I think the 12-40 makes prime lenses in that range redundant. The edge-to-edge sharpness is well documented but the whole look is really nice (colour, contrast, highlight control, rendition of out of focus areas etc). F2.8 is absolutely ample for most needs but there are those people who want extreme out of focus blur, who will maybe only be satisfied by the 75/1.8! Actually, out-of-focus rendition is really nice with the 12-40 and, surprisingly, the other lens in my "travel kit", the 75-300 zoom. An EM1, the 12-40 zoom and a longer lens to taste make an excellent, portable, high quality travel kit. If you want a second body, for whatever reason, there are now many cheap m4/3 bodies to choose from, some of which are tiny.
Don
Hi Don - I agree the 2.8 zoom is good and probably a suitable choice for most people. But remember the effective depth of field is more like f4 or 5.6 on a full frame camera, so those wanting faster lenses are not necessarily wanting "extreme out of focus blur", but just something more akin to the old 2.8 lens. I photograph people mostly and 2.8 is not great at isolating subjects with Micro 43, especially at the 12-40 focal lengths. With the longer lenses I agree 2.8 is possibly okay.
Jim
-
Hi Don - I agree the 2.8 zoom is good and probably a suitable choice for most people. But remember the effective depth of field is more like f4 or 5.6 on a full frame camera, so those wanting faster lenses are not necessarily wanting "extreme out of focus blur", but just something more akin to the old 2.8 lens. I photograph people mostly and 2.8 is not great at isolating subjects with Micro 43, especially at the 12-40 focal lengths. With the longer lenses I agree 2.8 is possibly okay.
Jim
Jim, you say that like it's a disadvantage to m4/3. The fact that I can get the same depth of field without having to stop down is a huge advantage! I spent decades in film days wanting more depth of field without losing shutter speed or having to use a fast, grainy film. With digital, I still don't like bumping up the sensitivity because no camera does better when you do that.
Conversely, I have absolutely no trouble whatsoever isolating subject from background whenever I want to. I just don't see the problem. It's always been way more about good technique than small differences in gear.
-
BC, the 12–40mm is mainly for when I'm not necessarily in a locale to photograph but would like to have the option anyway. One lens that covers a useful range fits that bill for me. I'm also not a trombone player with zooms (though as a teenager I did play trombone in a marching band!)...I think of this particular lens as a 17mm with variable framing options when needed. I've also got the 25/1.4 for speed and its overall pleasing look and the 75mm for more reach and a sharp w/ shallow DOF look when desired. I've actually got enough room in my bag for the Oly 17/1.8...might take it along too on my next excursion.
Deep, it's still a "full frame" world despite the fact that only a small percentage of cameras sold during the past decade + use that format. We've adopted 135 as our frame of reference, for better and for worse. People who've never used a 35mm camera in their life dream of the day they'll own an SLR that lets them use their lenses at their "true focal lengths." ::) (I've actually read that phrase in multiple photo magazines over the past two weeks...WTF!) The advantages of having deeper DOF at large apertures are lost on folks who equate speedy lenses with bokeh bounty. Now I like spatial/focal separation in photographs as much as anyone but IMO recently it's become more fetish than genuine creative expression or need.
The attached pic was taken by my dad in 1974. Faded Ektachrome. ;)
-Dave-
-
Personally, I think the 12-40 makes prime lenses in that range redundant. The edge-to-edge sharpness is well documented but the whole look is really nice (colour, contrast, highlight control, rendition of out of focus areas etc). F2.8 is absolutely ample for most needs but there are those people who want extreme out of focus blur, who will maybe only be satisfied by the 75/1.8! Actually, out-of-focus rendition is really nice with the 12-40 and, surprisingly, the other lens in my "travel kit", the 75-300 zoom. An EM1, the 12-40 zoom and a longer lens to taste make an excellent, portable, high quality travel kit. If you want a second body, for whatever reason, there are now many cheap m4/3 bodies to choose from, some of which are tiny.
Don
All good to know, Don. Thanks much. How fortunate are we to be making photographs in an era of unprecedented innovation, information-sharing and opportunity? There's gear for virtually every need, taste and shooting style, with upgrades always in the pipeline, plus a world of generous people like you (and everyone else in this thread) willing to offer their knowledge. I've read countless reviews and opinions on Oly (and other MFT) lenses. For some folks, the 12-40 PRO zoom is like a gift from above. Others say a small, light prime makes the E-M 1 feel like a whole different camera. I'm psyched to experiment and find what I like. Having spent many a day toting a Canon 300mm f/2.8 with 1.4x extender on a 1-series body, I'm guessing I'd need to hang a cinderblock off an Oly to even notice it. ;D If I fall in like with the 12-40, I could imagine picking up the forthcoming 40-150, adding a wide-angle prime, and closing out my travel wants. But I could also easily imagine getting hooked on primes for all the reasons BC mentions. Scott Bourne, for one, was blown away by the 75: http://photofocus.com/2012/12/16/olympus-m-zukio-75mm-f1-8-ed-lens-for-micro-four-thirds-cameras-mini-review/
Anyway, my fate is now in the hands of UPS. Let the games begin!
And thanks again to all who are contributing to this hugely helpful discussion.
-
The thing with me and zooms are they send me crazy. The only way I can work a zoom properly is to decide on what prime lens I want it to be, let's say a 35mm (17 in 43 terms) and leave it as a 35mm which doesn't do me much good given the zooms are slower. Remember a 2.8 in this format gives the same wide open look as f4 in full frame 35mm terms.
BC
That's very interesting - I think it comes from what we're accustomed to doing. I shot with a Canon A-1 from 1980 until 2006 and all I had was a zooms lens (took the kit lens off and never used it again).
A prime lens actually drives me nuts - I have to move to change the framing - really a nuisance with flower macros on a tripod. My perfect lens would be a 100 - 200 true macro. I'd shell out big money for one if it existed.
Glenn
-
Jim, you say that like it's a disadvantage to m4/3. The fact that I can get the same depth of field without having to stop down is a huge advantage! I spent decades in film days wanting more depth of field without losing shutter speed or having to use a fast, grainy film. With digital, I still don't like bumping up the sensitivity because no camera does better when you do that.
Conversely, I have absolutely no trouble whatsoever isolating subject from background whenever I want to. I just don't see the problem. It's always been way more about good technique than small differences in gear.
Well as I said - it all depends on what you're shooting. Technique will not make much difference if I'm trying to isolate my subject from a background with the equivalent of f5.6 on a 50mm lens (e.g. f2.8 on 25mm M4/3). With my Canon camera I'm usually shooting f2 - f2.8 so of course I cannot replicate that with a 2.8 on the M4/3 cameras.
If you like plenty of depth of field to work with the advantage is the other way round. I was just responding to your point that about "extreme out of focus blur" and saying that 1.8 is not extreme on a 12-40 lens, - F1 is more like extreme. Your style of shooting is facilitated by the greater DOF of M4/3, mine is made a bit more problematic, hence the need for apparently much faster lenses like F1 - f2 range. I love the ability to isolate subjects from the background even with standard focal lengths like 50mm equivalent. Not a style liked by everyone I know. And of course they still stop down if I need deeper DOF too. The other beauty of say an f1 lens is that I can be shooting it stopped down to 1.2 (better quality) and still be using a lowish ISO like 400 for indoor or night shooting handheld. I think we can all agree these are amazing little cameras with relatively few compromises.
Jim
-
Technique will not make much difference if I'm trying to isolate my subject from a background with the equivalent of f5.6 on a 50mm lens (e.g. f2.8 on 25mm M4/3). With my Canon camera I'm usually shooting f2 - f2.8 so of course I cannot replicate that with a 2.8 on the M4/3 cameras.
Of course, like most things in photography, it depends. If you have the option of moving the subject further from the background, f2.8 on m43 may be OK, even at 50mm equivalent.
-
Well as I said - it all depends on what you're shooting. Technique will not make much difference if I'm trying to isolate my subject from a background with the equivalent of f5.6 on a 50mm lens (e.g. f2.8 on 25mm M4/3). With my Canon camera I'm usually shooting f2 - f2.8 so of course I cannot replicate that with a 2.8 on the M4/3 cameras.
If you like plenty of depth of field to work with the advantage is the other way round. I was just responding to your point that about "extreme out of focus blur" and saying that 1.8 is not extreme on a 12-40 lens, - F1 is more like extreme. Your style of shooting is facilitated by the greater DOF of M4/3, mine is made a bit more problematic, hence the need for apparently much faster lenses like F1 - f2 range. I love the ability to isolate subjects from the background even with standard focal lengths like 50mm equivalent. Not a style liked by everyone I know. And of course they still stop down if I need deeper DOF too. The other beauty of say an f1 lens is that I can be shooting it stopped down to 1.2 (better quality) and still be using a lowish ISO like 400 for indoor or night shooting handheld. I think we can all agree these are amazing little cameras with relatively few compromises.
Jim
Horses for courses. My point rests.
-
All good to know, Don. Thanks much. How fortunate are we to be making photographs in an era of unprecedented innovation, information-sharing and opportunity? There's gear for virtually every need, taste and shooting style, with upgrades always in the pipeline, plus a world of generous people like you (and everyone else in this thread) willing to offer their knowledge. I've read countless reviews and opinions on Oly (and other MFT) lenses. For some folks, the 12-40 PRO zoom is like a gift from above. Others say a small, light prime makes the E-M 1 feel like a whole different camera. I'm psyched to experiment and find what I like. Having spent many a day toting a Canon 300mm f/2.8 with 1.4x extender on a 1-series body, I'm guessing I'd need to hang a cinderblock off an Oly to even notice it. ;D If I fall in like with the 12-40, I could imagine picking up the forthcoming 40-150, adding a wide-angle prime, and closing out my travel wants. But I could also easily imagine getting hooked on primes for all the reasons BC mentions. Scott Bourne, for one, was blown away by the 75: http://photofocus.com/2012/12/16/olympus-m-zukio-75mm-f1-8-ed-lens-for-micro-four-thirds-cameras-mini-review/
Anyway, my fate is now in the hands of UPS. Let the games begin!
And thanks again to all who are contributing to this hugely helpful discussion.
Indeed. My black 75mm gets here tomorrow morning.
Gleefully rubbing my hands together until that box arrives.
-
...2) I'm looking at the (back-ordered) 12-40 f/2.8 as my primary travel lens, with maybe the 75mm f/1.8 as a companion. Traveling light is key, so it's unlikely I'd want more than two lenses. Has anyone traveled extensively with this combo? Thoughts?
One thing no one has mentioned in this thread so far is that one of the nice things about the OMD (EM5 or EM1) is the weatherproofing, which comes in handy traveling.
Although the higher quality (and expensive) zooms will have drip and dust seals, there is only one prime that does. The Oly 60mm f/2.8 ED macro. This is my go to lens for skiing, windy beaches, desert, rain, snow, etc.
Considering the price point, and its excellent optical properties, I would recommend it as an alternative prime to either the 75/1.8 or 45/1.8 if you don't need the extra brightness or those particular FOVs.
My favorite combo right now when I am on the move is the EM5 with 60/2.8 and 25/1.4 in a sling bag, plus a Ricoh GR in my pocket. IMO, this makes no practical compromises on image quality vs. any other similarly lightweight setup for street or travel photography. An OMD with 12-35 or 12-40 would be good, but I'm not sure it would be as good.
Plus, having a leaf shutter compact in my pocket is handy when flashes are needed.
Good luck on the decision!
-
The two camera companies to me that are very impressive are Olympus and Fuji, in the fact they have gone back to past models and improved them with firmware upgrades.
The em-5 now has the focusing points of the em-1 (smaller and more defined) and faster focusing. It also allows for the ev-4 viewfinder and if you've used this finder you'll fall in love as it works straight on or as a waist level finder with 2 million dots.
The new Fuji is also impressive and the only thing it lacks is a full set of lenses on the shelf, ready to go.
Both Fuji and Olympus only lack two things for professional use. They need some longer lenses, in the 200, 300 and 400 (35mm equivalent range) a fast wide at 9mm or so and the ability to tether.
Other than that they are both very impressive companies.
One thing no one has mentioned in this thread so far is that one of the nice things about the OMD (EM5 or EM1) is the weatherproofing, which comes in handy traveling.
-
Both Fuji and Olympus only lack two things for professional use. They need some longer lenses, in the 200, 300 and 400 (35mm equivalent range) a fast wide at 9mm or so and the ability to tether.
I agree, both Olympus and Fuji are doing good things. And things that Canon and Nikon seem to be ignoring.
One other thing needed for professional use: a professional service network with fast repairs and loaners as Canon and Nikon have.
-
The weatherproofing really is impressive - I took an om-d 5 on a monthlong hike in vermont(most of the long trail), and it rode on my shoulder essentially the whole way (only ending up in its holster in the heaviest rain), 3000 images on that trip, and the little guy still works just fine! I now have that camera plus an om-d1 and a bunch of lenses including the stunning 12-40 (shortening Olympus' unwieldy names a bit), because I was so impressed with the om-d5 on the hike. I had the om-d1 out in a serious snowstorm for three hours yesterday, and the poor camera looked like a snowball (the hood was keeping snow off the front element, but I had to keep blowing off the viewfinder), but it kept right on shooting! It works fine today, too... Olympus claims that the weatherproofing is up to Nikon D4 or Canon 1dx standards, and i have no reason to doubt them, and quite a few to believe them...
That's roughly the range on the image quality, too - really good 16mp camera ( 1dsII, D4, D700, although it doesn't have the high ISO of the D4). No, it's not a 36 mp camera, but it offers darned good quality up to 20 x 27", and is wholly acceptable at 24x30". Sure, if you have a printer the size of a piano, you can get extra resolution out of a D800e ( there is no question in a huge print, although I will be darned if I can tell in a 16x20 of most subjects, including high - detail landscape).
There are two basic schools of landscape and nature photography - the perfectionist who will accept serious limits on where they can shoot ( the older Ansel Adams), or is exceptionally strong and agile, plus has help to carry gear ( the younger Ansel Adams, whose wife ended up with the tent and food many times - fortunately, both of them were really strong), and the photographer who says the best shot may not be somewhere the biggest camera is going (Galen Rowell).
If you're doing fast and light backcountry landscape, the Om-d series is one of only two really viable travel companions (the new, weatherproof Fuji X-t1 looks awfully intriguing as well). You won't always have a tripod, so the superb stabilization on the Olympus bodies (and several of the Fuji lenses) will save your bacon on a frequent basis. The cameras can take anything the Weather God can dish out, and both systems have some superb optics (although we haven't yet seen Fuji's weather sealed lenses, I'm confident they'll be great, having shot extensively with a variety of X-series lenses). I can carry an Olympus body, the 12-40, the superb 60mm macro lens and the Panasonic 100-300 ( a surprisingly decent, although not great, super telephoto) in a small waist pack! What other system offers a 600mm equivalent wildlife lens in a package the size of a soda can? Even if it's a merely decent lens, it goes places a 600mm Nikkor can't dream of, and doesn't cost as much as a decent used car.
The obvious question is "what about the Sony A7 and A7r - they're not much bigger than the Olympus"? First of all , the Sony bodies have FOUR native lenses (two zooms with pretty much the same range, and two primes with focal lengths within the range of the zooms, none of them a macro lens). The Zeiss zoom looks like an awfully nice lens, but it makes every other lens for the system redundant (in a real sense, they have one native lens...). I would almost guarantee that there is enough slop in adapters that my om-d bodies with the native 12-40 (or an x-t1 with a good Fujinon) will out-resolve any adapted lens on a Sony, with the possible exception of a Leica lens on a very expensive adapter - critical focus is a matter of fractions of a mm, and the tolerances of most adapters aren't great. The Olympus or Fuji shooter will have the choice of excellent autofocus or manual focus with automatic focusing aids, plus image stabilization, while the Sony shooter has to focus the adapted lens manually, turning focus aids on and off by hand, and has no stabilizer. The weather sealing on the Sonys is dubious - look at Roger Cicala's recent tear down - he couldn't find any gaskets, although there are quite a few flanges, which are better than nothing. Sony might yet do wonderful things with the A7 range, but I don't think they're there yet.
An exciting time to be a backcountry landscape shooter, with two options Galen Rowell would have killed for...
Dan
-
The obvious question is "what about the Sony A7 and A7r - they're not much bigger than the Olympus"? First of all , the Sony bodies have FOUR native lenses (two zooms with pretty much the same range, and two primes with focal lengths within the range of the zooms, none of them a macro lens). The Zeiss zoom looks like an awfully nice lens, but it makes every other lens for the system redundant (in a real sense, they have one native lens...).
I would almost guarantee that there is enough slop in adapters that my om-d bodies with the native 12-40 (or an x-t1 with a good Fujinon) will out-resolve any adapted lens on a Sony, with the possible exception of a Leica lens on a very expensive adapter - critical focus is a matter of fractions of a mm, and the tolerances of most adapters aren't great.
Dan
I think you're making a few leaps there. I just don't see the point about there only being one lens but if that's your view then that's your view. The two 24/28-70mm-ish zooms cover pretty much the same range but one is a kit zoom with variable aperture and the other is AFAIK a "better" lens with a constant aperture.
This shouldn't surprise too much as pretty much every other camera/lens manufacturer does the same thing.
I bought the kit zoom. Not because it's a fantastic performer but because it'll be good enough for occasional use and that'll be good enough for me as I mostly use primes and only use zooms very occasionally. This is early days though and I'm pretty sure that more lenses will come sooner or later and in the meantime there is the other lenses and adapters issue...
I have an A7 and I use old Zuiko and Rokkor lenses and they seem to work well via Novoflex adapters which cost under £100. Whether that's expensive or not is open to debate but they also work well with a £10 adapter I bought off ebay, all except my 24mm as the adapter is APS-C and the 24mm shows vignetting whilst my 28mm and anything longer doesn't. Both adapters seem to be well enough made and there doesn't seem to be any play in them or differences between image sides or corners.
I didn't really buy the A7 believing it was better than the alternative MFT and APS-C CSC's. I bought it because the spec suited me and how I want to shoot and because it enables me to use my legacy lenses without a crop factor.
-
Now this blows me away. I can't believe a little camera like this can produce more lattitude than the 1dx.
I really think olympus is on to something and these little cameras shoot way above their fighting weight.
FWIW, I completely agree. The orf files from the EM-5 (and EM-1) are just addictive. The impression you quote has held up with me for about a year and a half now.
-
I have had the Panasonic 12-35 and now the Olympus 12-40. It is my subjective opinion that the Olympus resists flare better. I also like the pull for manual focus feature.
I have had a moderately crummy experience with turnaround times with Olympus since moving to Precision camera. On the bright side, they comped me the service fee, so that was okay.
One complaint I have about the75mm is that it's flare around bright objects is really ugly.
The 12-40 has almost made my 12mm f/2 obsolete except for size and nighttime. I would still probably use the 12mm for street photography.
I currently travel with the 12-40, the Panasonic 25 f/1.4 and the Rokinon 7.5mm fisheye. Depending on my plans I may add the 75mm or the 60mm Olympus lenses.
-
Pixel for pixel, I think the Oly EM-1 is the best camera I've ever used. The files look great. The noise above 800 has a nice aesthetic and, if so desired, it is a cinch to clean up in ACR with the luminance noise reduction tool. I haven't seen color noise in any files under ISO 3200. The Oly primes--12mm, 17mm, 45mm, and 75mm are excellent. Nice bokeh, contrast, well-corrected, and more flare resistant than I'd have expected. I use an EPL-5 with the VF2 as a backup.
-
I had the OMD E-5 with the handgrip and was very satisfied for travel purposes using prime lenses. I just sold the E-5 and acquired the OMD E-1. I travel with a Tilley Vest and the Panasonic 20mm 1.7, Olympus 45mm 1.7, Olympus 12 mm F2, and the Panasonic 100-300 zoom. The primes fit in the vest with other accessories, but I tend to hang the zoom on my belt, when I carry same. I find this works exceptionally well and results from Prime lenses are very good indeed. It is my subjective impression that the images from the E-5 were sharper than the E-1. Also an unexpected problem is moire from the E-1 (anyone else encountered this???), so I have to shoot both raw and Jpeg files, as Oly processing eliminates moire in the jpeg files (or most of it).
Allan in BC
-
I had the OMD E-5 with the handgrip and was very satisfied for travel purposes using prime lenses. I just sold the E-5 and acquired the OMD E-1. I travel with a Tilley Vest and the Panasonic 20mm 1.7, Olympus 45mm 1.7, Olympus 12 mm F2, and the Panasonic 100-300 zoom. The primes fit in the vest with other accessories, but I tend to hang the zoom on my belt, when I carry same. I find this works exceptionally well and results from Prime lenses are very good indeed. It is my subjective impression that the images from the E-5 were sharper than the E-1. Also an unexpected problem is moire from the E-1 (anyone else encountered this???), so I have to shoot both raw and Jpeg files, as Oly processing eliminates moire in the jpeg files (or most of it).
Allan in BC
I've never used an e-5.
First I have to admit I used the em-5 a lot more than the em-1, but I'll know a lot more this week about the em-1.
I've used the em-5 for with studio flash and never seen moire which will usually show up with angled flash.
With sharpness, that's always hard to quantify. The em-5 and 1 are not as "sharp looking" as my medium format cameras, but much sharper than my canons and nikons in overall look.
The em-5 especially looks like film with pleseant grain. (everybody says that about noise if they like the camera) but in this case it's true.
I would ask what your processing in. Try lightroom, but also try iridient raw developer, or even olympus supplied software.
I read somewhere (don't know where) that the em-5 has a sony sensor, the em-1 a panasonic sensor but the em-1 (and I'm not a tech science type of person) is said to use a million of the 16million pixels for focusing so it is in a way a 15 mpx camera, though it has the same image size as any 16mpx camera. I don't know if that's true or not, though I really wished that the em-1 looked identical to the em-5.
Once again except for something like moire, all this how a file looks is very subjective, but if the jpegs are processing it out, obviously you can correct some or all of it in a software suite with more control.
Is it color or pattern moire. Color moire is easy, pattern moire is end of the world hard.
BTW: What are your settings. I may be wrong but I believe some of the raw settings are carried over to lightroom. Have you tried zero noise reduction, cutting saturation, putting sharpness below zero?
IMO
BC
-
I had the OMD E-5 with the handgrip and was very satisfied for travel purposes using prime lenses. I just sold the E-5 and acquired the OMD E-1. I travel with a Tilley Vest and the Panasonic 20mm 1.7, Olympus 45mm 1.7, Olympus 12 mm F2, and the Panasonic 100-300 zoom. The primes fit in the vest with other accessories, but I tend to hang the zoom on my belt, when I carry same. I find this works exceptionally well and results from Prime lenses are very good indeed. It is my subjective impression that the images from the E-5 were sharper than the E-1. Also an unexpected problem is moire from the E-1 (anyone else encountered this???), so I have to shoot both raw and Jpeg files, as Oly processing eliminates moire in the jpeg files (or most of it).
Allan in BC
I presume you mean the EM1, not the E1! After a few thousand photos from my EM1, I can say that I have seen glimpses of moiré but it tends to be very localised and you have to look hard for it. No worse, in fact, than my previous Canon 60D. I shoot exclusively in RAW and use Lightroom, so maybe there is some reduction going on behind the scenes? Incidentally, when the E5 (not EM5) first came out, I downloaded photos from that body and saw moiré in nearly all of them!
I'm surprised your E5 images look sharper than those from your EM1. That could be a lens/pixel density thing. With the same lens, I can't imagine the E5 would be getting a higher level of detail. Interesting.
-
I would try the same focal length lens in m43 rather than 43.
Not that one is sharper than the other, but there is a lot that goes on behind the curtain of all digital cameras and I assume olympus spent more time optimizing their processing for m43 lenses, than any others.
Just a guess but worth a try.
IMO
BC
-
After much dithering and fussing regarding my photo kit for an upcoming trip—this is what can happen when you need to make reservations eight months ahead of time—I've finally made up my mind. I started off intending to take a Pentax 645D and three lenses, then revised this to a Sony A7r and a set of 135 format Pentax lenses. But in the end I've chosen to take what I enjoy using most. That means two m43 cameras, E-M1 & GX7; Oly 12/2; Voigtländer 17.5 & 42.5mm f/0.95s; Leica 90/2 & 180/4 R series and also a Panasonic 20/1.7 for general purpose use. The E-M1's built-in intervalometer, with time-lapse video option, turned out to be the deciding factor. I love being able to shoot a timed series of stills, RAW + JPEG, then have the camera assemble 'em into a video (10fps) on the spot while also preserving the original data for later use as individual photos and/or raw material for higher fps time-lapse sequences.
This means I have to take two satchels instead of one, but I'll cram the second into my duffel and skimp on clothes if necessary. ;) Me happy now.
-Dave-
-
bcooter,........
OK,...I've read all this a couple of times and you're beginning to convince me so I'm now looking at E-M1/E-M5 with interest and thinking about scraping my pennies together and how I might just get back to some nice image making without the rucksack.........
The only hitch is that for many years I was a medium format user and old habits (and preferances) die hard.
I looked at your site and assume you are the 'Russell' part ...in which case you know how to hold a camera, so, what I need to know is;...can micro 4/3 in the form of E-M1/5 actually hack it?? My referance size print is 20x16...Will I be happier with APS-C........Still life & landscapes (ex industrial/TV stills/military photog)
....You thoughts on a post-card please.......
-
bcooter,........
OK,...I've read all this a couple of times and you're beginning to convince me so I'm now looking at E-M1/E-M5 with interest and thinking about scraping my pennies together and how I might just get back to some nice image making without the rucksack.........
The only hitch is that for many years I was a medium format user and old habits (and preferances) die hard.
I looked at your site and assume you are the 'Russell' part ...in which case you know how to hold a camera, so, what I need to know is;...can micro 4/3 in the form of E-M1/5 actually hack it?? My referance size print is 20x16...Will I be happier with APS-C........Still life & landscapes (ex industrial/TV stills/military photog)
....You thoughts on a post-card please.......
Don't do this to me. I don't mind be responsible for 6 figures of client money, but someone's personal money makes we sweat.
I don't know what you shoot, but if I was only going to be allowed one camera, I'd just buy a 5d2 (not 3) because I like the 2 better. They're cheap, kind of clunky and big, but lenses fall out of the trees and they last forever.
If you shoot a lot of video/motion then I'd do the new panasonic gh4 (probably) but m43 isn't cheap if your completely changing systems.
Even the Sony A7 is high considering the camera and size. I priced an A7 with a medium compliment of lenses and it hits 10 grand easily.
Don't get me wrong, for a lot of what people do like Michael, the olympus works well for him and it's a beautiful camera, but to recommend what someone does with "their" hard earned cash.
I don't want those points on my drives liscense if something goes south.
I would recommend the camera for me, but I have a lot of cameras.
IMO
BC
-
How about renting a micro 4/3 system for a week to see if it works for you ? At least one online company has a good selection of lenses and bodies.
Frank
-
Thanks for the suggestions. My noise reduction on the EM-1 was "auto", sharpness was '0'; so I have now reduced sharpness, contrast and saturation to -1. Will be interesting to see if images look degraded with these changes.
Speedy in BC
-
A good tip with an EM1 is to reduce the highlights on the tone curve by two clicks. It even makes life easier if you shoot RAW and use Lightroom. I have no idea why the standard setting throws away so much highlight information. A bit like recent Canons I have owned!
-
bcooter,....thanks for that...
I'll read that as a 'NO'.........Shame, because you got me a bit excited there for a while!
...........Normal judgement will be resumed as soon as possible and I'll forget that mu43 sh*t....
-
bcooter,....thanks for that...
I'll read that as a 'NO'.........Shame, because you got me a bit excited there for a while!
...........Normal judgement will be resumed as soon as possible and I'll forget that mu43 sh*t....
No, I'd have probably given you the same answer if you asked me about a 5d2.
Except the 5d2 does some things very well (stills well) , some other thing (video) ok.
5d2
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/paris_ae_ca_web.jpg)(http://www.russellrutherford.com/paris_hallway_sm.jpg)
But there is not a digital camera made that one do these still shots well, from $800 to $35,000.
But me (which is not others) just likes different stuff. I love leica, my original RED1's instead of ascarlet or epic, my contax phase, other than a new phase or new hasselblad, my olympus rather than my Canon 1dx, but I'm contrarian.
Then again like I say any camera will shoot well.
Without seeing it probably the best camera for the money is the new panasonic gh4 IF YOU SHOOT video because that camera will probably shoot a very good still file, 10 bit 442 video, and I know will track autofocus. I'll buy it, think it's kind of not pretty (I'm being polite), but it will work and probably work very well.
So I know I didn't help, but to me if money is an issue a gently used 5d2 and some canon primes would be the way to go as long as you use it until the plastic wears off and you spend your time making images not buying cameras.
IMO
BC
-
As I will be travelling for the next year I am looking for a single camera solution that will give me the best possible scope and quality in the smallest package available. After reviewing advanced pocketable cameras like the Sony RX100 MkII and Fuji X20 and wanting better handling and quality I narrowed it down to either the Fuji X-T1 or Olympus E-M1.
As a comparison for size and handling I checked out the D7100 and D610. As to be expected, with the bigger glass, especially the 24-70 f2.8 Nikkor, they were just enormous.
I also looked at the Sony A7, but the lack of quality native glass and very polarised reviews and opinions made me abandon it. However, I did like the viewfinder a lot and felt it was noticeably better than both the X-T1 and E-M1.
So, here I am with decision fatigue because I'm drawn to both the X-T1 and E-M1. Both offer very different styles of handling - the X-T1 with a snappy/casual rangefinder feel and the E-M1 with a DSLR grip for a much more deliberate feel. But, at the end of the day the E-M1 is a far more rounded and polished camera. Except... shooting to SD card on both and comparing JPEG output (no NR or sharpening) I found the X-T1 to be very noticeably better than the E-M1. However, the E-M1 was running firmware version 1.0 and so I will update it and try again.
The X-T1 had beautiful JPEG quality and I was more than a tad disappointed that the E-M1 couldn't come close. Not only was the grain more noisy, but the edges had classic JPEG artefacts (both cameras set to Large Fine JPEG).
The E-M1 was using the 12-40 f2.8, and the X-T1 the 18-55 f2.8-4.
Can anyone suggest settings to get the E-M1 to shoot better JPEGs? I'll be shooting SOOC, mostly.
To be honest, I'm a bit concerned that the m43 is going to be a bit limiting in scope (mostly the lack of low light capability - I want to be capture what I want when I want while walking streets at night or inside) when considered as my only camera for the next few years. I'm also hesitant to invest too heavily in the m43 lenses for the same reason. But, I just don't know.
As bcooter said, getting something FF like the 5dmII and a bunch of second hand glass is going to deliver the best scope and bang for buck. I had considered this with the D610 but size and weight just killed that idea. That and the fact that much of the good glass is expensive and still containing more compromises than equivalent m43 and Fuji glass.
I think all I need is a little convincing that the E-M1 is going to give me 95% of what I want for the next few years. As a camera system for lots of hard work it seems perfect. More so than the X-T1. The E-M1 just feels like a workhorse whereas the X-T1 is very nice but a boutique camera no less. Is that a fair assessment?
Dayumn, if only the E-M1 had a bigger sensor the choice would be easier. Cheers.
-
As I will be travelling for the next year I am looking for a single camera solution that will give me the best possible scope and quality in the smallest package available. After reviewing advanced pocketable cameras like the Sony RX100 MkII and Fuji X20 and wanting better handling and quality I narrowed it down to either the Fuji X-T1 or Olympus E-M1.
As a comparison for size and handling I checked out the D7100 and D610. As to be expected, with the bigger glass, especially the 24-70 f2.8 Nikkor, they were just enormous.
I also looked at the Sony A7, but the lack of quality native glass and very polarised reviews and opinions made me abandon it. However, I did like the viewfinder a lot and felt it was noticeably better than both the X-T1 and E-M1.
So, here I am with decision fatigue because I'm drawn to both the X-T1 and E-M1. Both offer very different styles of handling - the X-T1 with a snappy/casual rangefinder feel and the E-M1 with a DSLR grip for a much more deliberate feel. But, at the end of the day the E-M1 is a far more rounded and polished camera. Except... shooting to SD card on both and comparing JPEG output (no NR or sharpening) I found the X-T1 to be very noticeably better than the E-M1. However, the E-M1 was running firmware version 1.0 and so I will update it and try again.
The X-T1 had beautiful JPEG quality and I was more than a tad disappointed that the E-M1 couldn't come close. Not only was the grain more noisy, but the edges had classic JPEG artefacts (both cameras set to Large Fine JPEG).
The E-M1 was using the 12-40 f2.8, and the X-T1 the 18-55 f2.8-4.
Can anyone suggest settings to get the E-M1 to shoot better JPEGs? I'll be shooting SOOC, mostly.
To be honest, I'm a bit concerned that the m43 is going to be a bit limiting in scope (mostly the lack of low light capability - I want to be capture what I want when I want while walking streets at night or inside) when considered as my only camera for the next few years. I'm also hesitant to invest too heavily in the m43 lenses for the same reason. But, I just don't know.
As bcooter said, getting something FF like the 5dmII and a bunch of second hand glass is going to deliver the best scope and bang for buck. I had considered this with the D610 but size and weight just killed that idea. That and the fact that much of the good glass is expensive and still containing more compromises than equivalent m43 and Fuji glass.
I think all I need is a little convincing that the E-M1 is going to give me 95% of what I want for the next few years. As a camera system for lots of hard work it seems perfect. More so than the X-T1. The E-M1 just feels like a workhorse whereas the X-T1 is very nice but a boutique camera no less. Is that a fair assessment?
Dayumn, if only the E-M1 had a bigger sensor the choice would be easier. Cheers.
A pretty good assessment, I think. Though the XT1 wasn't out when I bought my EM1, I still would have bought the EM1 because of the lens choice available. I don't regret that, as it's a camera which is so capable and responsive that I never seem to miss a shot and the weight, even with the fast 12-40/2.8 or really-quite-long 75-300 is easily manageable, day in and day out. The image quality is stellar, most of the time, yet you'd be fooling yourself to say it was perfect. There is that very fine-grain noise if you shoot more than 100 "ISO" which often needs a little attention. For that reason, I shoot RAW when it matters and just apply presets on import to Lightroom. However, if you trust the jpeg engine, the results are far from bad for any non-commercial use. What settings to use are a matter of taste. I use standard noise reduction, plus one on sharpening (these are pictures I want to have immediate punch, not print for exhibition) and natural colour. I also pull the highlights down two clicks on the tone curve, which helps hugely.
Having said all that, you'd be kidding yourself to say the Fuji didn't have a cleaner sensor. Resolution is near identical, possibly minutely favouring the EM1 and it's possibly a tiny bit easier to get your colours right with the Olympus but, when the light gets bad, what I've seen of the Fuji seems clearly better.
On balance, the real decision must be more on handling/weight, lens choice (consider rain and dust proof in that mix) and cost. The one that you feel like you want to use will be the better camera, if the lens choice works. Surely?
-
My impressions of the X-E2 and the E-M5 are similar to what Deep described. But once you go to print, the differences will be de minimus in the vast majority of shots. For me it all comes down to handling and shooting flow. I have ended up with the Fuji for these more intangible factors, others have come to the opposite conclusion. Best thing if possible would be to try both for a while and see which you gravitate to. You can't go wrong with either system.
-
Thank you, both.
High ISO capability is definitely a major consideration and perhaps might be the deal breaker on the E-M1. But, I agree that handling and controls are likely to be even more important.
As much as I really like the thoroughly worked out system on the E-M1, I do also very much like the X-T1 way of working. A more casual style with maybe slower and more contemplative manipulation of dials and knobs.
I guess, as someone posted earlier on this thread, I could shoot JPEG and RAW on the E-M1 and clean up the luminance channel a little when converting the night shots from RAW.
More playing needed in the store.
Cheers,
Nick
-
Dayumn, if only the E-M1 had a bigger sensor the choice would be easier. Cheers.
Fuji sensor is actually subpar vs Sony APS-C implementations by Ricoh/Pentax or Nikon... so a little bigger die does little (except ~0.5 stops in S/N above deep shadows - but that's displacement naturally) if you shoot raw.
http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR.htm#OM-D%20E-M5,X-T1
that's XT-1 vs E-M5 (not E-M1 even).
-
However, the E-M1 was running firmware version 1.0 and so I will update it and try again.
you really need to update it to get EFCS = http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3651827
-
Personally I don't shoot JPEGs with the intent of using them as is. They get processed even if that amounts to no more than a levels tweak. With this in mind I set sharpening, contrast & NR to the lowest values allowed. I'd much rather tweak noise myself on a pic-by-pic basis. Note that I rarely reduce luminance noise, just chroma. I like luminance texture in my photos. My favorite b&w developer was Rodinal, so there ya go. :) I also set a reverse-S tone curve to tame any remaining tendency toward hot highlights or crushed shadows. And I use a "natural" color profile, one where saturation isn't exaggerated up or down at its default value.
I've had little problem getting malleable JPEGs from my m43 cameras or Fuji X-E1. The Fuji files are a bit thicker, though. With m43 I sometimes resort to the RAW data, even for casual/online use, to get a more pleasing highlight rendering. In the end the m43s win out due to camera responsiveness and overall lens lineup.
-Dave-
-
Thank you, Vlad, Telecaster. Also to the OP.
Cheers
-
Thank you, both.
High ISO capability is definitely a major consideration and perhaps might be the deal breaker on the E-M1. But, I agree that handling and controls are likely to be even more important.
As much as I really like the thoroughly worked out system on the E-M1, I do also very much like the X-T1 way of working. A more casual style with maybe slower and more contemplative manipulation of dials and knobs.
I guess, as someone posted earlier on this thread, I could shoot JPEG and RAW on the E-M1 and clean up the luminance channel a little when converting the night shots from RAW.
More playing needed in the store.
Cheers,
Nick
You have to realize that for any given iso, comparable to full frame to hold the same amount of focus depth your probably something like 3 1/2 stops more with full frame.
This was shot with the em1 and some hmi and windowlight for key, and I used a leica s2 and a em-1. (the em-1 is the photo). The S2 was at F4 point something, 360 iso and 1/60th of a second.
The em-1 was I think at iso 200, f 2.0 1/800th, of a second.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/yel_vs_skirt_oly.jpg)
So since the em-1 goes easily to 1000, for almost any larger format size your going to double, triple and quadruple the settings to get to the same place.
IMO
BC
-
As I will be travelling for the next year I am looking for a single camera solution that will give me the best possible scope and quality in the smallest package available. After reviewing advanced pocketable cameras like the Sony RX100 MkII and Fuji X20 and wanting better handling and quality I narrowed it down to either the Fuji X-T1 or Olympus E-M1.
As a comparison for size and handling I checked out the D7100 and D610. As to be expected, with the bigger glass, especially the 24-70 f2.8 Nikkor, they were just enormous.
I also looked at the Sony A7, but the lack of quality native glass and very polarised reviews and opinions made me abandon it. However, I did like the viewfinder a lot and felt it was noticeably better than both the X-T1 and E-M1.
So, here I am with decision fatigue because I'm drawn to both the X-T1 and E-M1. Both offer very different styles of handling - the X-T1 with a snappy/casual rangefinder feel and the E-M1 with a DSLR grip for a much more deliberate feel. But, at the end of the day the E-M1 is a far more rounded and polished camera. Except... shooting to SD card on both and comparing JPEG output (no NR or sharpening) I found the X-T1 to be very noticeably better than the E-M1. However, the E-M1 was running firmware version 1.0 and so I will update it and try again.
The X-T1 had beautiful JPEG quality and I was more than a tad disappointed that the E-M1 couldn't come close. Not only was the grain more noisy, but the edges had classic JPEG artefacts (both cameras set to Large Fine JPEG).
The E-M1 was using the 12-40 f2.8, and the X-T1 the 18-55 f2.8-4.
Can anyone suggest settings to get the E-M1 to shoot better JPEGs? I'll be shooting SOOC, mostly.
To be honest, I'm a bit concerned that the m43 is going to be a bit limiting in scope (mostly the lack of low light capability - I want to be capture what I want when I want while walking streets at night or inside) when considered as my only camera for the next few years. I'm also hesitant to invest too heavily in the m43 lenses for the same reason. But, I just don't know.
As bcooter said, getting something FF like the 5dmII and a bunch of second hand glass is going to deliver the best scope and bang for buck. I had considered this with the D610 but size and weight just killed that idea. That and the fact that much of the good glass is expensive and still containing more compromises than equivalent m43 and Fuji glass.
I think all I need is a little convincing that the E-M1 is going to give me 95% of what I want for the next few years. As a camera system for lots of hard work it seems perfect. More so than the X-T1. The E-M1 just feels like a workhorse whereas the X-T1 is very nice but a boutique camera no less. Is that a fair assessment?
Dayumn, if only the E-M1 had a bigger sensor the choice would be easier. Cheers.
I don't know if labeling the X-T1 a "boutique camera" is going to help your decision, this sounds like the sort of dismissal a "serious" photographer would make of mirror-less cameras, the same sort of "serious photographer" who would scoff at the E-M1 being labelled a "workhorse", despite never having used one. At the end of the day it's a box with a lens on the front that captures images, and it appears from your own assessment that the Fuji box gives better jpegs straight out of camera than the Olympus box, so I say go for it. Either system will be a compromise - the Fuji is harder to work with quickly according to some (but then this comes down to how YOU shoot), and the X-system is currently missing a serious flash unit and a fast telephoto zoom, although there will be two tele-zooms by the year's end. But the Fuji's larger sensor, better low light performance and quality jpegs sound more suited to your needs (not that I've ever heard anyone complain about Olympus jpeg quality). It also sounds like you find the Fuji's control scheme appealing rather than confronting, so I say quit deliberating - grab one and start shooting.
-
Fuji sensor is actually subpar vs Sony APS-C implementations <snip>
That's interesting. I have a Fuji A6000 and an Olympus OM-D E-M1. I used to own a Fuji X100s. The IQ from that camera appears to be as good as the Sony A6000's, but I never conducted any scientific tests. Do you have a link to such a comparison test between the Fuji & Sony sensors? Thx.
-
J,
The problem with the 5D2 is that on some samples the focus is a bit random. As a friend at Canon told me after we tested *their* 5D2 inside their offices with fast 200: "I looked at the shots and it was focusing about anywhere". It wasn't malfunctioning, it was just not really accurate. My friend Norman Koren (author of Imatest) came to Paris with a borrowed 5D2 and standard zoom, and I warned him about this, he laughed, when he got back he noticed a good fraction of his imagery was blurred. I went to the races - and you know I'm an ex-event photographer and have the care and awareness which goes with that- and for some reason the AF system disliked the colorful jockeys jackets in the sun with the 135/2 and suddenly turned out a bunch of blurry images of the horses being slowly led out of the paddock (not the race itself). On a tennis match, the focus was better than my Nikon. What can I say? I got wonderful images from the 5D2, it punches well above its weight when it is having a good day, but is totally unreliable. The used 1Ds3 I got by swapping my 5D2 is sharp, clean and totally reliable day in day out. I would recommend a used 1Ds3 - they cost around $1500 now, are built like trucks, and AFAIK deliver zero surprises. Although for all I know some of them may have the action focus bug of the 1D3.
Edmund
Don't do this to me. I don't mind be responsible for 6 figures of client money, but someone's personal money makes we sweat.
I don't know what you shoot, but if I was only going to be allowed one camera, I'd just buy a 5d2 (not 3) because I like the 2 better. They're cheap, kind of clunky and big, but lenses fall out of the trees and they last forever.
If you shoot a lot of video/motion then I'd do the new panasonic gh4 (probably) but m43 isn't cheap if your completely changing systems.
Even the Sony A7 is high considering the camera and size. I priced an A7 with a medium compliment of lenses and it hits 10 grand easily.
Don't get me wrong, for a lot of what people do like Michael, the olympus works well for him and it's a beautiful camera, but to recommend what someone does with "their" hard earned cash.
I don't want those points on my drives liscense if something goes south.
I would recommend the camera for me, but I have a lot of cameras.
IMO
BC
-
The 5DIII focussing is in a different class compared to the MKII, the outer zones are all reliable and usable wide open which is not the case with the II
-
The 5DIII focussing is in a different class compared to the MKII, the outer zones are all reliable and usable wide open which is not the case with the II
I second that. And it's not just the outer zones that are better; the center is too. With the 5D3, Canon raised the AF from consumer level to pro level (i.e. essentially as good as the 1DX). LensRentals did some AF accuracy tests here:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/07/autofocus-reality-part-3a-canon-lenses
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/08/autofocus-reality-part-3b-canon-cameras
Some notes from the above:
- Canon's newer lenses have much more accurate phase detect AF on the 5D3, but not on the 5D2.
- The AF of the 5D3 was not a minor upgrade over that of the 5D2.
- The 5D2, even on its release, was known to have “consumer-grade” autofocus.
- The 1Ds3 included every possible AF technology of the day [back in 2007], including a separate AF processing chip.
Unfortunately, "Older cameras don’t have accurate enough AF sensors to take advantage of the new lenses’ capabilities. Older lenses can’t move their focusing elements with enough accuracy to take advantage of the new cameras’ accurate sensors." — LensRentals.com
-
That's interesting. I have a Fuji A6000 and an Olympus OM-D E-M1. I used to own a Fuji X100s. The IQ from that camera appears to be as good as the Sony A6000's, but I never conducted any scientific tests. Do you have a link to such a comparison test between the Fuji & Sony sensors? Thx.
http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/
you can download software, test your cameras, contribute results, discuss/argue w/ author - actually you can be the first to contribute a Sony camera there if you have one
-
Hi all,
Just joined the forum after reading this thread. I've been an Oly u43 user for about a year and a half now since switching from a Canon 5dii. Like many who've made similar journeys, I got into u43 to have a small camera to take when I didn't want to haul the Canon about. It didn't take too long to realise that in many circumstances, the IQ was no worse in any meaningful way to the Canon and boy, was it smaller, lighter and actually, more fun! I went from being an OVF snob to an EVF evangelist, love IBIS and I find the accuracy of AF way better than the Canon ever managed. I sold all my Canon gear and would never go back.
Now, I know that this isn't a move that will suit everyone. I'm strictly an amateur, don't do sports or BIF and don't usually print beyond 16x20 (but I've done some bigger acrylic wall frames) and for me, u43 delivers all I need. With an E-M5 and a few primes, I can pack it all into a small bag and go hiking all day without any shoulder ache or such like by the time the sun sinks below the horizon; and I know the IQ will be more than good enough for competition or hanging on the wall.
I'm currently running an E-M5 and E-P5 combo, but I'll be dropping the E-P5 and picking up an E-M1 soon. The rationale is that whilst I love EVFs, I'm really not enjoying rear-screen composition, except for use on a tripod or for low level shots. So, I want a setup with built in EVF.
So, now the main point of my post... I'd be really interested to hear from anyone with both an E-M5 and E-M1 about differences they've found between the files from the two cameras. I love the files from the M5 and P5 and of course they share the same sensor. From what I've seen on the web, there are differences on the E-M1 but the reviews never go into enough detail.
-
So, now the main point of my post... I'd be really interested to hear from anyone with both an E-M5 and E-M1 about differences they've found between the files from the two cameras.
you shall drop E-M5, not E-P5 because it is not getting EFCS ( http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3651827 ) like E-M1 or E-P5
tripod or IBIS does not matter, E-M5 is not worth it now just for that reason...
-
you shall drop E-M5, not E-P5 because it is not getting EFCS ( http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3651827 ) like E-M1 or E-P5
tripod or IBIS does not matter, E-M5 is not worth it now just for that reason...
I see where you're going, but I've never experienced shutter shock on my E-M5. I did observe it on the E-P5 though, although I found it hard to reproduce at will. In fact, I thought for a while that I had got lucky and had an E-P5 which was immune to it. I really love my E-M5. I never really gelled with the E-P5 in the same way.
-
So, now the main point of my post... I'd be really interested to hear from anyone with both an E-M5 and E-M1 about differences they've found between the files from the two cameras. I love the files from the M5 and P5 and of course they share the same sensor. From what I've seen on the web, there are differences on the E-M1 but the reviews never go into enough detail.
The em-5 and em-1 have different sensors. The 5 uses Sony, the 1 uses Panasonic, at least that's what I'm told.
I own both cameras, along with the gh3's.
My take is the em-5 produces a prettier file in the fact it's more color receptive and has a prettier texture than the em-1 which to me has more of a smoother, but global color.
The Em-1 is a better camera, not as enduring as the em-5, but has a few more features, slightly larger and easier to use, focus is about the same.
I bought an Em-1 because it allowed standard 43 lenses and has a pc sync. The lenses, I've forgotten about because the focus of 43 lenses wasn't great and since Panasonic has come out with fast 42.5 mm primes and soon a 150mm 2.8 the standard 43 lenses are becoming less needed.
The Em-1 also has a better viewfinder, really amazing viewfinder, but if you add the ev-4 clip on viewfinder to the em-5 you get the same results and the viewfinder goes up and down so you can shoot standard and also low like a waist level finder.
I don't understand the shutter shake people mention with the em-5 because I've never seen it.
Actually last Dec. I really was excited about the Sony A7 and tested it next to my em-5 numerous times.
This image was shot at the Sony store (right before they closed) and honestly the A7 had blur, the em-5 didn't.
This is not an artistic but interesting image as it was a room full of mixed lighting from tungsten to led's bouncing around and the em-5 was really pretty, the sony a7 was very global and kind of warm orange and working both later in Raw Developer I couldn't get the same results.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/small_sony_store3.jpg)
BTW this is cropped to about 2.3 of a frame
here it is at 1000 iso close to full rez.
http://www.russellrutherford.com/stony_store_large.jpg
To be fair both the em-5 and 1 focus very quickly, but neither track focus very well.
To track focus the only way I've made it work is to set it to single, and just touch, then shoot, touch then shoot and for medium speed subjects the em-1 will hit focus.
From em-1
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/yel_vs_skirt_oly.jpg)
My bottom line is both cameras are very good, shoot way above their format and both are close to equal to any less than 20mpx dslr made.
The em-5 is really inexpensive now about 1/2 the price of the 1 so with an ev-4 finder you probably have as good if not better camera than the em-1.
In fact the em-5 has more latitude than my 1dx
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/em5_1dx.jpg)
But before I spent the money, I would rent a em-1 from borrow lens and see for yourself.
I really have to admit that the em-1 is a very, very, very well built camera.
IMO
BC
-
The Em-1 is a better camera, not as enduring as the em-5, but has a few more features, slightly larger and easier to use, focus is about the same.
To be fair both the em-5 and 1 focus very quickly, but neither track focus very well.
The em-5 is really inexpensive now about 1/2 the price of the 1 so with an ev-4 finder you probably have as good if not better camera than the em-1.
I really have to admit that the em-1 is a very, very, very well built camera.
IMO
BC
I would hope the EM1 would be more "enduring" than the EM5! After all, it does earn a "Pro" designation. Unless you meant "endearing", which is a very subjective thing (though I agree, to an extent).
In terms of focus tracking, the EM1 is better. Though still not brilliant, it's actually pretty good if you shoot video.
An EM5 with external viewfinder loses its main advantage over the EM1 as it becomes clumsy and bulky. There are many other considerations of course, the biggest of which is that there is now an even cheaper and well-spec'd EM10 to think about...
-
I would hope the EM1 would be more "enduring" than the EM5! After all, it does earn a "Pro" designation. Unless you meant "endearing", which is a very subjective thing (though I agree, to an extent).
In terms of focus tracking, the EM1 is better. Though still not brilliant, it's actually pretty good if you shoot video.
An EM5 with external viewfinder loses its main advantage over the EM1 as it becomes clumsy and bulky. There are many other considerations of course, the biggest of which is that there is now an even cheaper and well-spec'd EM10 to think about...
Sorry, mean endearing. Sometimes get mumble fingers.
Don't get me wrong the em-1 is a better camera. If the bloody thing would tether and track focus I'd sell all of my canons and I got a lot of canon stuff and I never sell any equipment.
Not that the OP asked, but honestly the best camera in m43 for a working pro is the panasonic gh3s and 4's. They're not pretty, kind of like a smaller 5d2, but bang for the buck they roast anything out there and their video is off the scale amazing. Their lens set is higher quality and has beautiful roll off, but they also need to tether and using wi-fi tethering in a professional situation is not reliable.
I disagree about the vf4 on the em-5 because it's not heavy and makes the camera a lot more useful, except you lose the hot shoe.
The gh3/4 has a lot of buttons though they are entirely intuitive and it also has touch screen and the best menu system in the biz. Let's be honest olympus menu system is a nightmare.
Also the gh3/4 autotracks good. Not AA fuel dragster good, but equal or better to a canon 5d2. It smokes the olympus on autotracking.
The main reason I suggested the op go with another em-5 is
1. It's great having one system with 1 interface and set of controls. If I use the em5 I'm always thinking about how to turn on the em-1.
2. If you don't like it and want to sell it off for another camera you won't lose much.
3. I believe it's a prettier camera and shoots a prettier file.
IMO
BC
-
I'm starting to wonder if I have some as yet undiagnosed co-ordination problem. No one seems to mention the - to me - atrocious handling characteristics of the EM5. I'm continually finding myself accidentally in some unrequested mode. The tight grouping and anaesthetised feeling of the control set on the right rear of the camera is a constant menace.
The four directional control buttons are simply a joke if you're looking through the VF and trying to steer the (now, thankfully, reduced) focus box around. Well, not such a joke if you lose the shot whilst looking at the grid which has accidentally appeared: annoying to say the least. I use a Capture Clip to hold the camera on a backpack harness and when removing it to shoot it's 50/50 whether I'll have accidentally hit the OK/menu/info buttons.
Much as I appreciate the quality of the camera's files and the overall reduction of the system size compared to my FF gear - which I hardly use any longer - the EM5's handling can fairly be described as utterly hopeless, particularly (but by no means exclusively) when trying to shoot wildlife where rapidity is often critical.
The preceding by no means covers the range of constant annoyances this camera generates, such as various info modes appearing and disappearing in the VF as one accidentally activates a minute, numb, button. And I have small hands...
Then there's the firmware.
I've skipped the EM1 partly because I find that succumbing to the "upgrade" hysteria wearisome, partly for economic reasons (I'm poor) and partly because I suspect that the third generation of these cameras may exhibit improved ergonomics: which wouldn't be difficult. Better VF aside, I see no compelling reason to buy an EM1.
Roy
-
I'm starting to wonder if I have some as yet undiagnosed co-ordination problem. No one seems to mention the - to me - atrocious handling characteristics of the EM5. I'm continually finding myself accidentally in some unrequested mode. The tight grouping and anaesthetised feeling of the control set on the right rear of the camera is a constant menace.
..........snip..............
The preceding by no means covers the range of constant annoyances this camera generates, such as various info modes appearing and disappearing in the VF as one accidentally activates a minute, numb, button. And I have small hands...
Then there's the firmware.
I've skipped the EM1 partly because I find that succumbing to the "upgrade" hysteria wearisome, partly for economic reasons (I'm poor) and partly because I suspect that the third generation of these cameras may exhibit improved ergonomics: which wouldn't be difficult. Better VF aside, I see no compelling reason to buy an EM1.
Roy
I think the em-1 is best served when you move the focus points on the lcd as a touch screen, which has it's plus and minus, but other than the track pad it's not that difficult.
The olympus cameras are hard to set up with their menu system but once done, it becomes intuitive.
Actually nearly all cameras have autofocus glitches in set up. FF mirror box cameras don't cover the full frame and usually require two functions to make work, smaller formats are a little better depending on brand, even touch screen smart phones combines focus and exposure in one tap which isn't always the plan.
The gh3/4 has the most intuitive focus and interface as any camera I've used with a combination of well though out hard buttons and a very intuitive menu, along with a touch screen overview window.
There are three options today, touch screen like the leica T that is smart phone like, traditional buttons like on the gh3/4 that hopefully are well placed and thought out or a combination.
Actually 4 focusing options, just set it on manual and use your eyes. In the dslr world that's difficult because of servo lenses and overly sharp viewfinders that don't give a true read.
A manual lens lie a voigtlander on a mirrorless camera is easier to work manually.
If the em-5 has any issue to me it's the track focusing is poor and it's about 10% too small, but overall it's a good camera with a good lens set.
IMO
BC
-
I agree with BC about the E-M5's slightly-too-small size. Can't say I've had any handling issues with it, though, other than needing to be precise in pushing the up/down/left/right buttons. For manual focusing I find it superior to the E-M1 due to the placement of the top deck function button, which I use to switch focus magnification on & off. I do this with my index finger, using my middle finger to fire the shutter. The same technique works with the E-M1 but the buttons don't fall as naturally to hand. Otherwise, though, the E-M1 is a bit more polished as a camera. It feels about right size-wise. I've found the intervalometer very useful & versatile for time-lapse sequences. I've also been pleasantly surprised by how well the batteries hold up in constant use...600–800 frame sequences, no problem, even in cold (~7° F) weather. The new electronic first curtain shutter option is nice for folks who've experienced "shutter shock" and all those otherwise concerned about it. Can't say I've seen it myself but vibrations are bound to exist when you have moving parts...so it's good to minimize them when you can.
I also agree with BC about the look of the two cameras' files. There's greater tonal separation/differentiation with the E-M5. Sensor differences, CFA differences...whatever it is I wish the E-M1 had the same look. Because of this I've delayed getting the E-M5 converted to IR-only use. Maybe I'll get the E-M1 converted instead...
-Dave-
-
The em-5 and em-1 have different sensors. The 5 uses Sony, the 1 uses Panasonic, at least that's what I'm told.
I own both cameras, along with the gh3's.
My take is the em-5 produces a prettier file in the fact it's more color receptive and has a prettier texture than the em-1 which to me has more of a smoother, but global color.
The Em-1 is a better camera, not as enduring as the em-5, but has a few more features, slightly larger and easier to use, focus is about the same.
I bought an Em-1 because it allowed standard 43 lenses and has a pc sync. The lenses, I've forgotten about because the focus of 43 lenses wasn't great and since Panasonic has come out with fast 42.5 mm primes and soon a 150mm 2.8 the standard 43 lenses are becoming less needed.
The Em-1 also has a better viewfinder, really amazing viewfinder, but if you add the ev-4 clip on viewfinder to the em-5 you get the same results and the viewfinder goes up and down so you can shoot standard and also low like a waist level finder.
I don't understand the shutter shake people mention with the em-5 because I've never seen it.
Actually last Dec. I really was excited about the Sony A7 and tested it next to my em-5 numerous times.
This image was shot at the Sony store (right before they closed) and honestly the A7 had blur, the em-5 didn't.
This is not an artistic but interesting image as it was a room full of mixed lighting from tungsten to led's bouncing around and the em-5 was really pretty, the sony a7 was very global and kind of warm orange and working both later in Raw Developer I couldn't get the same results.
...
BTW this is cropped to about 2.3 of a frame
here it is at 1000 iso close to full rez.
http://www.russellrutherford.com/stony_store_large.jpg
To be fair both the em-5 and 1 focus very quickly, but neither track focus very well.
To track focus the only way I've made it work is to set it to single, and just touch, then shoot, touch then shoot and for medium speed subjects the em-1 will hit focus.
From em-1
...
My bottom line is both cameras are very good, shoot way above their format and both are close to equal to any less than 20mpx dslr made.
The em-5 is really inexpensive now about 1/2 the price of the 1 so with an ev-4 finder you probably have as good if not better camera than the em-1.
In fact the em-5 has more latitude than my 1dx
...
But before I spent the money, I would rent a em-1 from borrow lens and see for yourself.
I really have to admit that the em-1 is a very, very, very well built camera.
IMO
BC
Thank for this post. I'm curious about the differences you see in colour handling between the two cameras. What do you mean by 'global' colour? Do you mean that the E-M1 doesn't differentiate colours as well as the E-M5? Do you have an example?
Thanks for your help.
-
I have been on the fence between an EM-1 and Fuji XT-1 for a while now. Would love any advice from people who have considered both. I have an EM-5 right now with a good lineup of lenses. I have enjoyed it, but on the other hand it seems the IQ isn't really any better with the EM-1 (it also sounds like EM-1 IQ is not really different from the EM-10, for that matter). In addition, and this is hard to be scientific about, XT 1 images (I rented one) do seem a little more "3D", having more depth and dimension vs. a more "flat" image from m43 -- e.g., imagine round-the-house family images using the 23mm lens at f1.4; beyond just the shallow DOF, it feels like a "deeper" image, with a greater sense of near, medium, and far elements of the frame. I assume this is due to the larger sensor.
But, I love the EM-1 build/layout and the 12-40 lens looks spectacular. Decisions, decisions. Any advice on how to tip the scales would be appreciated.
-
... I have an EM-5 right now with a good lineup of lenses. I have enjoyed it, but on the other hand it seems the IQ isn't really any better with the EM-1.
For me and my EM5, my IQ issue is not what the sensor is capable of (I am quite satisfied with that), it is the OOF errors and missed opportunities with moving subjects like birds, where the PDAF system of the EM1 promises easily visible improvements. More generally, the IQ issues that I think about in gear choices these days are the hard cases that are of relevance to me, not pixel-peeping the easy cases like studio test shots in the hope of distinguishing between "excellent" and "most excellent".
But I have no idea how the EM1 compares to the XT-1 on that score, or how important moving subjects are to you.
-
...XT 1 images (I rented one) do seem a little more "3D", having more depth and dimension vs. a more "flat" image from m43 -- e.g., imagine round-the-house family images using the 23mm lens at f1.4; beyond just the shallow DOF, it feels like a "deeper" image, with a greater sense of near, medium, and far elements of the frame. I assume this is due to the larger sensor.
I don't think this is due to the sensor size in & of itself but rather to the different focal lengths required for a given field-of-view. I've noticed much the same effect using my Pentax 645D compared with, say, Sony's A7r (also using Pentax lenses, though not the same ones). The inherent optical magnification of a lens seems to contribute to the sense of spatial separation, or relative lack thereof, in photos taken with the lens. The greater the mag the greater the sense...but it's a subtle thing.
Despite the fact that I love m43 and rarely use my X-E1 (and will likely sell it in the near future), I'd suggest that if you're in the mood for an upgrade/change you give the X-T1 a shot. The E-M1 is IMO a better camera overall than the E-M5 but its image quality isn't "better" per se, just different.
-Dave-