Kevin's article, "Two Weeks With The Olympus E-M1"

[PeterAit]

I doubt there are many posters on this forum for whom their equipment is limiting their photography, whatever they are shooting.

Exactamundo! When I look at my many photos that seemed to have promise but just did not "make it" in the end, it is NEVER because there aren't enough pixels or they aren't sharp enough (excepting obvious things like focus errors and camera shake). Rather, it's bad composition, poor lighting, wrong time of day, poorly chosen subject, etc. One must have "reasonable" equipment, of course, but in today's hyper-competitive camera market there really are no bad cameras. There are, however, lots of bad photographers, many of them hauling around D810s and whatever glass that DXO tells them is best. My main interest is photography. If yours is equipment, so be it, but it's not the same thing.

[Hans Kruse]

Exactamundo! When I look at my many photos that seemed to have promise but just did not "make it" in the end, it is NEVER because there aren't enough pixels or they aren't sharp enough (excepting obvious things like focus errors and camera shake). Rather, it's bad composition, poor lighting, wrong time of day, poorly chosen subject, etc. One must have "reasonable" equipment, of course, but in today's hyper-competitive camera market there really are no bad cameras. There are, however, lots of bad photographers, many of them hauling around D810s and whatever glass that DXO tells them is best. My main interest is photography. If yours is equipment, so be it, but it's not the same thing.

Good photography is helped by good equipment. Good equipment will never harm the good photographer. Good equipment will help the photographer present his work in the best possible way, especially if big prints are needed. For small prints you may not see any difference between a very expensive camera and a rather cheap one. Of course, for the photographer who are not so good or has a bad day or week, equipment does not help.  I'll stunned abut these comments that always come along any technical discussion.

[kers]

....it is NEVER because there aren't enough pixels or they aren't sharp enough....  My main interest is photography. If yours is equipment, so be it, but it's not the same thing.

My interest is photography too- and now the better camera only costs about 3000$ so you would be stupid not to buy it...A good camera like the  d810 is not only about 36Mp- it is also about dynamic range; 5 fps; autofocus etc...about being able to get the shot you want and as good as possible to todays standards...
I do architecture and 36mp does matter there... but for other type of photographs you only need some pixels to get the message across...

[Ray]

I have to say that I'm rather puzzled at the response of certain posters who have expressed difficulty in understanding the points I've raised here, in relation to Kevin's article.

I assure you I am not criticizing the qualities of the E-M1 in any way, or Kevin's interest and enjoyment in taking pictures with a variety of different cameras.

My point was entirely about the misleading comparison Kevin made in the article, describing a D800E with 150-600 Tamron lens attached as being equivalent to the EM-1 with 100-300 lens attached, in relation to the type of images, or more specifically, the range of FoVs that each systems would enable one to capture.

The D800E with Tamron 150-600 weighs about 3 kgs. The E-M1 with Panasonic 100-300 zoom weighs only 1 kg. That's a huge reduction in weight, and a reduction in bulk also. If those two systems are really equivalent, for someone who considers a 16mp file sufficient, then that would be a huge advantage for the E-M1 with a 100-300 lens attached.

The point I've been making is that this concept, that these two camera systems are equivalent, is very misleading for anyone who is not familiar with the general concepts of lens equivalence, FoV and the significance of cropping.
For example, it might be the case that some people reading this article have already bought a D800E and are considering what telephoto lens to buy. They may be attracted to the Tamron 150-600 because of its long reach and because they are interested in birds and wildlife, but are very undecided because of the heavy weight of 3 Kgs, when the lens is attached to the camera, and the general awkwardness of carrying around such a heavy and bulky system.

They read Kevin's article, see the visual comparison between the E-M1 and the Tamoron 150-600 on the D800E, and think, "Wow! I don't need to buy this Tamron 150-600. I'll spend a bit more money and get an E-M1 with Panasonic 100-300 zoom. According to Kevin, It'll produce similar results."

Now, all I'm trying to do here is to apply a little bit of rational thought to such a comparison, in order to help people avoid making the wrong decision in relation to their equipment requirements. I could have kept quiet, and perhaps Kevin would have preferred that, but I'm not that sort of person. I enjoy robust converstaions and the application of rational thought to the process of making equipment purchasing decisions.

If Kevin had shown an image of the D800E attached to a lighter and less bulky Nikkor 80-400 zoom, I would probably not have raised the issue, although I still might have because of the significant wide-angle advantages of a full-frame 80mm focal length compared with the widest 200mm focal length equivalent of the E-M1. However, at the long end, the 80-400 is a closer match to the Panasonic 100-300 on the E-M1.

As I'm sure Kevin is aware, the D800E has a DX mode. In that mode, the Nikkor 80-400 at the long end produces a 16mp image with an effective focal length of 600mm. I doubt that such a 16mp image in DX mode would be inferior in any way to the 300mm shot from the E-M1. In fact, according to DXOMark, the D800E, pixel for pixel, has a full stop greater DR at base ISO, than the E-M1, and 5dB better SNR at 18% grey. 5dB is equivalent to more than 1 stop better, only 1 dB shy of 2 stops better.

However, to be objective, as I always try to be, except when I'm being funny  , such differences are greatly diminished above ISO 400, just as they are with Canon cameras.

[deejjjaaaa]

I doubt that such a 16mp image in DX mode would be inferior in any way to the 300mm shot from the E-M1.

again it depends in a lab - no, in a real life it depends, even if each sensel naturally will be as good as in lab... in real life you might end up no taking this weight with you at all 

[John Camp]

Ray, you're over-thinking it. Kevin's doing journalism, not writing technical tracts, and the standards of precision are different. Are you saying that you *really* don't know what he meant? Or that you know what he meant, you're just standing up for the ignorant? I don't understand nearly as much about the technical aspects of photography as you do, but I didn't have any trouble understanding the article or the limitations of the article.

If I were going to critique the article, I would say that to my eyes, most of his illustrative photos would have been better shot with the Nikon (the exception, and an excellent one, being the shot of the kid.) That's because Kevin's style is that of a careful, technical photographer, and his pictures reflect that. If you're going for technical excellence, it seems to me that you'd want the highest resolution tool that you could carry, and by that standard, a high end FF camera and high-end lens will generally beat an m4/3 in technical terms. In other words, I'm not sure than an m4/3 really suits Kevin's style, just as I don't think an iPhone would. Sometimes, of course, the extra lightness really counts...but that happens less often, I think, than is sometimes reflected on these forums. I once hauled a Nikon system (D3, D300, two f2.8 zooms and two or three other lenses) around Iraq, jumping in and out of helicopters (and I was 64.) If I were to do a similar trip today, I'd go m4/3 in an instant. But, I did it with the Nikons, and it all worked out fine. I would have appreciated carrying less weight, but I didn't require it. If I were a photographer of Kevin's aesthetic bent (or yours), I think I'd take the weight.

[Ray]

again it depends in a lab - no, in a real life it depends, even if each sensel naturally will be as good as in lab... in real life you might end up no taking this weight with you at all 

Of course. This is where selection of the appropriate lens comes into play. In order to select the appropriate lens for the circumstances, one needs to be aware of all the options which a particular lens will provide in conjunction with the camera's sensor size and pixel density.

In order to make a sensible choice between a D800E with 80-400 lens, and an E-M1 with 100-300 lens, one has to be aware that the E-M1 is incapable of taking a wider shot than 200mm (in full frame terms). There's a huge difference between 80 mm and 200 mm. This is the advantage of that extra weight.

The next option is the much lighter Nikkor 70-300 zoom. This lens with D800E is only 720 gms heavier than the E-M1 with 100-300 zoom, but has the advantage of a much wider angle of view, equal to a 35-300mm lens on the E-M1. It also has a much higher resolution at that wider angle, and all FoVs that approach that, but unfortunately it has the disadvantage of a (probably noticeable) lower resolution at the 600mm end (full-frame equivalent, comparing the 9.4mp crop with the 16mp of the E-M1).

There are always trade-offs. To make a rational decision one should be aware of such trade-offs.

[Ray]

Ray, you're over-thinking it. Kevin's doing journalism, not writing technical tracts, and the standards of precision are different. Are you saying that you *really* don't know what he meant? Or that you know what he meant, you're just standing up for the ignorant? I don't understand nearly as much about the technical aspects of photography as you do, but I didn't have any trouble understanding the article or the limitations of the article.

Me? Technical? I'm not technical. I'm just practical. If I appear to be concerned about DR, for example, it's not for any technical reason. It's purely emotional. I simply don't like to see noise in the shadows of my images. It disgusts me.
Nor do I like to make such shadows totally black during processing, in order to hide the noise, except in circumstances where the shadows contain nothing interesting, or are a distraction, and the 'blackness' contributes to the general appeal and impact of the composition.

When I first came across this site about 14 years ago, the 3mp Canon D30 was all the rage, but there was a lot of confusion about the significance of the cropped sensor and how it affected Field of View and Depth of Field, and even shutter speed in relation to the 1/FL rule, because most people were familiar only with the full-frame 35mm format.

All I've done in this thread is deal with some very basic principles relating to the significance of cropping and pixel density.

PS. That must have been quite an experience in Iraq, jumping in and out of helicopters. I bet you wouldn't want to do that with ISIS around, whatever the weight of your camera. 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi!

As a general comment…

I would take a lightweight equipment over a heavy weight equipment any day, if:

- Both equipments gave the same quality
or
- The lightweight equipment gave good enough quality for all my needs

I am pretty sure that both Olympus and Panasonic are well optimised for their sensor size. So if I feel that 16 MP is quite enough for my needs I may as well go with the smallest system.

If I feel I need more pixels, I guess I also may need a larger sensor but that means also a significantly larger system.

BTW, Fuji seems to go between, using APS-C and optimising the system around that sensor size.

Best regards
Erik

[deejjjaaaa]

BTW, Fuji seems to go between, using APS-C and optimising the system around that sensor size.

except deoptimizing it with no EFCS (compensated by slower shutter blades to reduce shutter impact - see slow x-sync ) and xtrans (problems w/ demosaicking)... in this case you might as well go with APS-C from Sony.

[ErikKaffehr]

Yeah, I agree on xtrans.

Still, I feel it is good that Fuji makes lenses for the APS-C sensor. Canon, Nikon and Sony makes a few lenses for APS-C that are pretty good, but most of their lenses are really for full frame. Fuji does a good job on providing APS-C optimised lenses.

Best regards
Erik

except deoptimizing it with no EFCS (compensated by slower shutter blades to reduce shutter impact - see slow x-sync ) and xtrans (problems w/ demosaicking)... in this case you might as well go with APS-C from Sony.

[Ray]

Hi!

As a general comment…

I would take a lightweight equipment over a heavy weight equipment any day, if:

- Both equipments gave the same quality
or
- The lightweight equipment gave good enough quality for all my needs

Of course Erik. One can't disagree with that.. If the lighter equipment really is good enough for your needs, or perhaps more correctly expressed, your 'wants', then the main issue would be the expense of the new system.

However, in order to determine if the system really is good enough for your wants and your style of shooting, one should be aware of the options, pros and cons, and ramifications of each system one is comparing..
Reading Kevins article again, I get the impression he is carrying 4 lenses with the E-M1, a 7-14, 12-40, 45mm macro, and 100-300. That effectively takes him, in full-frame terms, from 14mm to 600mm, but with a fairly significant gap between 45mm and 100mm (or between 90mm and 200mm in full-frame terms).

For my style of shooting I would find such a gap in focal lengths frustrating, particularly if I'm limited by a 16mp sensor. Such a gap, between 90mm and 200mm, when using a D800E is less frustrating. With the D800E in DX mode the 90mm becomes 135mm with a 16mp file size, and one can use all the 'effective' focal lengths between 90mm and 135mm at resolutions greater than 16mp.

Having more pixels than you think you need is no disadvantage nowadays because memory card storage is so huge. What many people don't seem to realize is that those 'apparently' unneeded and unwanted extra pixels can serve a valuable purpose by effectively extending the reach of whatever lens you have on your high-megapixel camera.

If 16mp is your standard, then a D800E (or D810) would be terrific. Every lens you buy has extended qualities. Every prime lens becomes 'effectively' a short-range zoom, and every zoom lens you buy has it's range extended by 50%.

A 50mm prime becomes a 50-75mm zoom with a constant apperture, and a 70-300mm zoom becomes a 70-450mm zoom, in relation to your 16mp requirement.

The D800E with Tamron 150-600 zoom, which Kevin equated in his article with his E-M1 with 100-300 zoom (equivalent to FF 200-600), is really a 150-900mm zoom in E-M1 terms. Wow! To get that 'effective' range with a 4/3rds camera, you would need to use a 75-450mm zoom, not a 100-300 as Kevin implies.

I hope this is all clear now, for those of you who may be mathematically challenged. 

[JV]

Rhetorical questions:

What's so difficult to grasp about the concept of different camera/lens systems for different purposes?

Why do some of us perceive gear preferences held & expressed by others as existential threats?

Why do we keep having essentially this same fruitless "discussion" repeatedly?

-Dave-

Amen!  A voice of reason...

[BJL]

Of course Ray is correct in a nit-picking way; if one is satisfied with the 16MP detail given by en EM1 with a 300mm lens, you can get the same pixels on the subject with a 16MP "DX" crop from the 36MP 36x24mm sensor of the Nikon D800 or D810.  Which leave us with a couple of issues:
- the lenses needed is something like the Nikon 80-400mm, and that plus a D80 is still considerably bulkier that the EM1 with Panasonic 100-300 (or in my case, the even smaller combo of EM5 with the Olympus 75-300).
- the OVF image of that 16MP crop is AFAIK far smaller than when the EVF of the EM1 gives (that 16MP crop occupies only 4/9 of the total OVF image area)
- avoiding that small OVF crop image by composing on the rear-screen LCD is not a pleasant way to compose super-telephoto images. And yes, in my experience it is quite feasible to compose hand-held at 300mm in 4/3" forms: modern IS is a wonderful thing for us telephoto fans.

[Ray]

Of course Ray is correct in a nit-picking way; if one is satisfied with the 16MP detail given by en EM1 with a 300mm lens...

What! You think the difference between an effective 600mm focal length and an effective 900mm focal length is 'nitpicking', or the difference between an effective 70mm focal length and a 200mm focal length (comparing a 100-300 on the E-M1 with a 70-300 on the D800E) is nitpicking? Are you serious? 

Which leave us with a couple of issues:
- the lenses needed is something like the Nikon 80-400mm, and that plus a D800 is still considerably bulkier that the EM1 with Panasonic 100-300.

Of course it is, but a 100-300 on the E-M1 is clearly not equivalent to an 80-400 on the D800 across the whole range. The equivalent lens for the E-M1 would be a 40-300 zoom. If such a lens existed for the 4/3rds format, it would certainly be lighter than the Nikkor 80-400 (assuming an aperture range of around F4.5-5.6) and therefore any comparison would be fair and reasonable, like comparing apples with apples.

Those in favour of the lighter E-M1 with 40-300 zoom could claim that being limited to a 16mp file across the full range is no disadvantage because 16mp is sufficient for their purposes in all circumstances. Those who favoured the significantly heavier Nikon system would point out that the advantages of a significantly more detailed file across the greater part of the range, ie. 40-200 in E-M1 terms, and the significantly greater DR and SNR flowing on from that greater file size, justify that extra weight.

Whatever system one prefers for a particular set of circumstances, is a personal choice. There's neithr right nor wrong if a choice is made with full awareness of the facts.

By the way, when I mentioned before that at base ISO the D800E pixel has a whole stop better DR than the E-M1 pixel, and almost 2 stops better SNR at 18% grey, such differences are of course more significant for the images at wider angles which employ the full frame of the D800E. Such 36mp images downsampled to 16mp have about 1 & 2/3rds of a stop better DR and 9.6dB better SNR at 18% grey, at base ISO. That's a whole 3 stops better SNR. Do you call that nitpicking? 

At high-than-base ISO the differences are not so great, but SNR is still 6dB better (or 2 stops better) all the way to ISO 12,800. What competent photographer would give a stuff about a mere 2 stops advantage regarding smoother mid-tones, combined with 2/3rds of a stop better DR at high ISO? 

the OVF image of that 16MP crop is AFAIK far smaller than when the EVF of the EM1 gives (that 16MP crop occupies only 4/9 of the total OVF image area)
- avoiding that small OVF crop image by composing on the rear-screen LCD is not a pleasant way to compose super-telephoto images.

That's a fair point and something that should be considered. Let no-one think I'm being biased here. 

I imagine that the image through the EVF of the E-M1 at 300mm would appear larger and more detailed than the image through the OVF of the D800E, through the lens at 400mm. That's an advantage. Just how significant this advantage would be, I simply don't know. However, I do know from experience that I prefer to look through an OVF than an EVF.

Whatever the advantages of the larger image as seen through the E-M1 viewfinder at 300mm, such advantages should at least partially be offset by the time saved in not having to precisely compose and frame the shot when using the D800E at 400mm, when one has the intention of getting the 600mm effect. One has the option of using the D800E in DX mode, which results in a DX frame outlined in the viewfinder, or one can continue to shoot in full-frame mode which offers the option of cropping later during post-processing. This is my preferred option, since I frequently change my mind about issues of cropping, sometimes years later. Also, sometimes when I'm in a hurry to capture the moment, I make mistakes in precise framing, accidentally cutting off someone's foot or ear, for example.

The available choice of lenses in any camera system is also an important consideration. I consider having to frequently change lenses a pain and an inconvenience which sometimes cause me to miss the shot. I notice that the range of zoom lenses available for the micro 4/3rds system is excellent. There should be no trouble covering the range from 14mm to 600mm (full-frame equivalent) with just 3 zooms. This is definitely an advantage for those who are more concerned about weight and bulk than resolution, DR and SNR.

[BJL]

That's a fair point and something that should be considered. Let no-one think I'm being biased here.  

I imagine that the image through the EVF of the E-M1 at 300mm would appear larger and more detailed than the image through the OVF of the D800E, through the lens at 400mm. That's an advantage. Just how significant this advantage would be, I simply don't know.

I can't help noting the irony here: thousands of times over the years people have mentioned smaller viewfinder image size as a significant disadvantage of smaller SLR formats, often disparaging the "tunnel vision" VF images of those smaller format cameras ... and now suddenly Ray wonders "Just how significant this advantage would be, I simply don't know." (Not that I am accusing you of ever making that particular criticism of smaller formats, Ray.)

Maybe this helps:

- The D800 VF magnification is 0.7x (at 50mm); at the low end amongst 36x24mm DSLRs, and smaller than any DX format DSLR I know of. (For comparison, the entry level Nikon D3300 is 0.85x.)  Its image of the DX crop is thus of a size comparable to 0.47x in 36x24mm format, smaller than any DX format SLR, and about matching the smallest OVF image size of any Four Thirds DSLR (The E-500, at 0.9x, or "0.45x, FF equivalent").

- The OM-D E-M1 VF magnification is 1.48x (again at 50mm), for an image size comparable to 0.74x in 36x24m format.  That's right, somewhat bigger than even the full D800 VF image (or the OVF image of any AF DSLR from Nikon, AFAIK) and vastly bigger than the D800's DX crop mode image, which occupies only about 44% of the VF image area.

The VF image size size ratio is in fact larger than the 400mm vs 600mm difference that Ray is complaining about in Kevin Raber's article.

[Ray]

I can't help noting the irony here: thousands of times over the years people have mentioned smaller viewfinder image size as a significant disadvantage of smaller SLR formats, often disparaging the "tunnel vision" VF images of those smaller format cameras ... and now suddenly Ray wonders "Just how significant this advantage would be, I simply don't know." (Not that I am accusing you of ever making that particular criticism of smaller formats, Ray.)

Maybe this helps:

- The D800 VF magnification is 0.7x (at 50mm); at the low end amongst 36x24mm DSLRs, and smaller than any DX format DSLR I know of. (For comparison, the entry level Nikon D3300 is 0.85x.)  Its image of the DX crop is thus of a size comparable to 0.47x in 36x24mm format, smaller than any DX format SLR, and about matching the smallest OVF image size of any Four Thirds DSLR (The E-500, at 0.9x, or "0.45x, FF equivalent").

- The OM-D E-M1 VF magnification is 1.48x (again at 50mm), for an image size comparable to 0.74x in 36x24m format.  That's right, somewhat bigger than even the full D800 VF image (or the OVF image of any AF DSLR from Nikon, AFAIK) and vastly bigger than the D800's DX crop mode image, which occupies only about 44% of the VF image area.

The VF image size size ratio is in fact larger than the 400mm vs 600mm difference that Ray is complaining about in Kevin Raber's article.

BJL,
Maybe those thousands of comments you refer to are from people with eyesight problems, or from people who prefer to manually focus. I rarely use manual focus. When I do, it's usually with camera on tripod, using LiveView.

I usually photograph subjects which I first see with the naked eye. When I raise the camera to my eye, what I see through the viewfinder, even with the 0.74x magnification of the D800E, is often larger and more detailed than what I saw before raising the camera to my eye. In fact, at all focal lengths above 70mm, the image through the D800E viewfinder is enlarged, in proportion to the focal length, to a greater degree than what the naked eye sees.

As I've mentioned before in other discussions, I use my cameras in manual mode, regarding shutter speed and aperture selection, but in autofocus mode for focusing. Autofocusing is a tremendously useful feature of the modern camera.

I use a single focusing square on my D800E, which I move to whatever part of the composition I wish to be in precise focus. If I wish to focus on something close to the edge or corner of the frame, which is outside of the range of positions that the focusing square can be moved to, I swing the camera just a little bit so the focusing square precisely covers that part of the scene I want to be in focus. I then press the AF-ON button which locks the focus on that part of the scene, allowing me to recompose the shot, and/or swing the camera in another direction entirely, so that the focusing square might cover a cloud in the sky, for example, if I want to expose for the sky. I then adjust the shutter speed with thumb until the exposure indicator at the bottom of the viewfinder looks right, half-depress the shutter button which locks exposure for the sky, then recompose the shot a second time.

If one uses the D800E in DX mode, or with the intention of cropping the image later to approximately DX size, it's true that the relevant composition in the OVF will be smaller than it would be when using the same lens on a DX camera, and again that could be a disadvantage for those with poor eyesight or for those who like to manual focus.

However, there can also be an advantage to this situation of a smaller image enclosed within a wider view. One can see events taking place outside of the DX frame, and can therefore better anticipate action. I'm sure Henri Cartier Bresson would have agreed. 

And of course, provided one is using a lens longer than 70mm, which one very likely would be when not using  a wide-angle zoom, the detail within the smaller DX frame, within the D800E viewfinder, would still be larger than what the naked eye sees.

For me, this issue of magnification is not a problem. Okay?

[Kevin Raber]

Are we through yet?  I have pictures to take.

Kevin

[Ray]

Are we through yet?  I have pictures to take.

Kevin

Go ahead, Kevin. Take your pictures. Don't let me stop you. This is not compulsory reading, is it? 

[VidJa]

One thing I mis in this discussion is the WAF factor. For mortals like me that work 50h a week to keep the business running that's an important factor too.My wife really accepts my hobby, even the costs, but she refuses to carry 'the bag with FF goodies'. This sadly stopped me from bringing the gear on family hikes to beautiful french alps, scottish views and dutch beach sunsets.
When I proposed to get the EM-1 for our trip to norway next year she was delighted.