Olympus OM-D - Image impressions coming from FF?

[Centauri]

Hey guys,
 I'm pondering a few weeks already if I should get a OM-D 

At the moment I have a 5D2 and very good glass (17-40, 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8 IS II, 2xTCIII, 35 1.4, 50 1.4, 100L Macro) and my gf has a rebel with 17-50 2.8. There isn't anything we couldn't do with it. Landscape, Macro, Wedding, Zoo, Street, Party and Walkaround. Most use lenses are 35 1.4, 100L and 70-200
And while appr. 60% of my pictures are done at ISO100-200 there are many cases where I need 800-5000)


But my biggest concern with Olympus is not the High ISO noise - it's the "image impression" . Heck, what does that even mean?
Well, I know most photographers think shallow depht of field doesn't make good photo and they are correct. But I really like the creative component of it and image impression of wide open lenses. I hate the "digi cam look" where nearly everythings sharp for what I shoot. I know there are 0,95 and good primes. But 20 1.7 is still different from my beloved 35 1.4 often used at 1.4 on FF. And I'm certainly not a prime only shooter!
 

I'm looking for an OM-D5II with 7-14, 12-40 and 35-100 2.8 and two primes. It would be much lighter for walk around and travelling...But is 2.8 on Olympus good enough for me (=5,6 on FF)?
Since the OM-D option isn't cheap either, I would have to see which lenses to keep and which Oly lenses are better suited. Just buy it in addition wont do the trick.
Like if the 35-100 2.8 (360g!!) is good enough....I could get rid of my 70-200. But is it good enough for wedding and Portrait? thats a different beast.


Someone in a similar spot? I am a perfectionist and if I travel to exciting countries and locations I don'T want to regret it and think: Now, if I only had my FF collection with me...fuck the extra weight, i can shoot anything I want when I want. 



PS: I guess I need to buy a OM-D and see it myself (and sell it if it isn't for me) but I always like some opinions and discussion.

[degrub]

lensrentals.com

[SZRitter]

You never mention where you live, so....

If you have a halfway decent camera shop near you, they may let you try it in the store. Much cheaper than renting, but no where near as good of a test drive.

I can tell you, that moving to M43, if you want to use the narrower depth of field, even with a 1/8000 shutter speed, getting ND filters for the lenses may not be the only way to get there.

As for traveling, have you thought of a small fixed lens? I travel with a TLR, compact (Fuji X10 currently) or just a single lens, and find it liberating. I keep thinking about an X100 to travel with....

[nma]

Hello Centauri,

I am on the same road, a few paces ahead. I still have my 5Dii, a 16-35 L, 34-105 L and the 70-200 L. I also have a sore neck which led me to consider the E-M1, which I bought along with the  Oly 12-40 pro, 60 mm macro and pany 30-100.  This kit is superior in many  ways to the 5Dii kit outlined above. Its capabilities overlap my photographic interests -landscape, cityscape, macro, travel. The 5Dii was never great for auto focus and I used Live view for landscape focus.  I plan to add an OLY 1.8 or 1.4 lens allow for more blurred background when desired. There is something about the Oly 12-40 zoom that I have never experienced with a Canon lens, the presence, the sharpness of the rendition, 'dunno but I like it.

The control with this camera puts Canon to shame. It's a blas to shoot, though stome users complain that it is too complex. Ha, they don't grasp the systematic aspects of the UI. The EVF is fantastic, particularly for the older gentlemen with fraying eyesight, DOF preview, level, histogram, color balance, etc.  So too, the ability for manual focus at 14x magnification. What is Canon thinking? The IBIS stabilization system kills the Canon in lens approach. The touch screen facilitates things like focus stacking. I can go on and on but I will end by noting the subtle color rendition that can be obtained with this camera. I was turned on to this by viewing examples the street photography of Michael Reichmann published on LuLa a couple of years ago. You should consider both the E-M5ii and the E-M1 before deciding.

Oh, forgot to mention the print quality with my Epson 3800 at 17x22 in is excellent. There is no reason to believe that is the limit.

[bcooter]

I have the first em-5 and the newer em-1.

Coming from Canons and other ovf is a real change.    Some good, sometimes not so good.

The em-5 and em-5 2 have a different sensor than the em-1, sony vs. panasonic and the em-5 produces a better look and slightly deeper file than the em-1 which to me seems kind of thin.

The biggest hurdle is camera is small, almost too small so it takes a while to get use to it.  I would think two weeks of use and you'll be fine.

The lenses are sharp, though as you mentioned if you use the 2.8 zooms you get the dof of a 5.6 lens in full frame, so fast primes produce more options.

The stabilization on both cameras is amazing.

IMO

BC

[Telecaster]

I love shallow DOF as much as anyone, and honestly I don't find getting it to be an issue with m43 cameras. What you can't do is use exactly the same approach & techniques as with your Canon. Different format, different rules.

In film days this was easier to grasp since cameras of different formats, at least those I owned or had access to, operated & handled differently. Not possible to confuse a Hasselblad or Rolleiflex with a Canon or Nikon. The differences in behavior of a given focal length in front of different sizes of film…those differences were just part of the deal. These days, though, cameras are more similar across formats in UI & handling. At the same time the 35mm format has become so fetishized that lens behavior in front of any non-36x24mm sensor is often seen as abberant. "Once I get my full frame camera my lenses will work at their true focal lengths," and other such gibberish.

Anyway, when it comes to shallow DOF with m43 I tend to use narrower fields-of-view than with larger formats. Instead of, say, portraits with an 85/90mm lens at f/2–2.8 (my long-time 35mm format preference) I'll use Olympus' 75/1.8 wide open. Shorter focal length but narrower FOV. And sometimes I'll frame tighter as well if that helps blur out an otherwise distracting background. The main thing, though, is that I'm more careful with m43 in choosing pleasing backgrounds and pleasing subject/background spatial relationships since I can't always rely on my lenses to blur away all obtrusive background detail.

One thing you can take advantage of is the shorter minimum focusing distance of many m43 lenses compared to their 35mm format counterparts. Oly's 40–150/2.8, for example, can focus down to 70cm (officially…the actual minimum is ~55cm). I find this encourages me to get closer to things, to choose smaller subjects and/or isolate smaller areas of larger subjects. This is good…it gets me out of my ruts, helps me see things in new ways.

-Dave-

[spidermike]

At our camera club is a guy been shooting for 30 years, and he currently has a D800. He has seen some of the adscape stuff that I and another MFT owner have produced (me the GX7 and EM5, he a EM1) and is wondering shy he is lunking around hsi D800 having seen the quality of images at A3.
Getting it right with the Oly is a bit frustrating at first but I have found as long as you are careful with highlights you can get loads of detail from shadows; and it does have its limitations IMO that if you need to process heavily for whatever reason the image is not quite as forgiving as your 5D - then again if landsape is your thing you can probably get framing right in camera most of the time - it is us wildlife photographers needing to crop heavily who can come unstuck.
As has been said the IBIS is awsome as it kicks in quicker and is more effective than the Canon in-lens stabilisation: I have had a 20mm lens with 1 second exposure (yep!) handheld and sharp.

I still use my 7D with 70-200 simply because of the f4, but Oly have some superb primes that will given that sort of effect and even the Pany f2.8 zooms are no slouch.  The only reason I still have my Canon is because of the 100-400 zoom for wildlife and the (compared with my E-M5 original) vastly superior focus tracking, and up until the Oly 40-150 f2.8 there were no really high-quality telephotos available. But with the 300mm f4 on the horizon, who knows.

One reason the MFT is my go-to cmera of choice now is the size: My bag with the E-M5, 14mm, 20mm, 45mm prime, 12-25 f2.8 and 40-150 are not much larger than the 7D body with battery grip. Put the20mm on the GX7 as a ready-loaded second body with lens and it is still compact. And tha tis what I love about it: there were times I used to think 'shall I take my 7D with me' and the answer was 'Can't be bothered'. Now it is 'why not' and out it goes


One big downside is battery life - if you turn off auto-preview and don't chimp you can get up to 600 shots per charge (somepeople claim up to 1,000). With all those turned on you are talking about 300. Secondly the format - if you prefer 3:2 your 18MP camera becomes 12MP which can reduce your options a bit more but I have grown to like the 4:3 format.

Regards being a perfectionist, there are websites comparing the EM5 with the 5D2 and the EM5 wins for dynamic range and shadow recovery. If you want to print big (>A2) the 5D2 will still be the first choice IMO. And if you like street phtography, I nocied a huge difference between pointing a 7D with 17-55 at people and pointing my EM5 at them - basically they don't react to the EM5.

[bcooter]

The main thing, though, is that I'm more careful with m43 in choosing pleasing backgrounds

This is important.

It's funny I have a lot of fat 1.2 to 1.4 ff lenses for Canon and very, very rarely use them wide open.

I'm nearly always at 5.6 or 8, usually 4, because backgrounds and subject are always of equal importance.

Now in regards to image quality, using a 1dx that shoots a very nice file, compared to my em-5 I'd say the difference in detail is around 10%, the difference in noise is about 1/2 stop up to around 800 then the difference is substantial in favor of the 1dx.

The only real difference is the 1dx has much better still image track focus, though the em-5 has better color separation.

IMO

BC

[Centauri]

Thanks for all the good answers so far! Very helpful.

As for traveling, have you thought of a small fixed lens? I travel with a TLR, compact (Fuji X10 currently) or just a single lens, and find it liberating. I keep thinking about an X100 to travel with....

I know where you are coming from and it depends on the definition of the term "travelling". Most think travelling is all about light gear (its true for some kind of travelling of course).
But for me travelling to interesting places and countries is where I want my close to best output. If I walk in my hometown or go to the barbecue party of my friends, then I would travel with a small fixed lens without hesitation.

But when I think on my holiday travel (which is all about learning about new and exciting countries as well as photography) I couldn't go with a fixed lens. And thus we are back why I started this thread: namely, if a M43 package would still be good enough or should I bring all my FF stuff? I guess anything with a fixed lens is not an option here (maybe in addition to FF for a few occasions).


I guess I will rent (or better buy) an olympus and see it myself. I can always sell it if its not my thing.

[Guillermo Luijk]

If you are a perfectionist and love shallow DOF on FF using 1,4 lenses forget about M4/3 zooms and use only primes:

[spidermike]

If you are a perfectionist

There are two types of perfectionist: those who like to know they have captured the best possible image quality even though the realistically (and probably in private) know they never need it for their chosen outputs; and those who seek the best possible quality of image for their chosen output. A lot of the time they coincide, a lot of the time they don't.

My reckoning is that if they are acceptable for an increasing number of working (and award-winning) professionals, including many who publish in international magazines, then any shortfall is mine and not the gear.

[Telecaster]

Here are a few example pics. The first from Grand Canyon Nat. Park about a year ago with an E-M1 and Pentax 150/3.5 lens (via adapter) at f/4. The second from my backyard in May 2013 with an E-M5 and Panasonic 20/1.7 wide open, taking advantage of the lens' close minimum focus distance. The third from my garage, also in May 2013 with the E-M5, using a Panasonic 45–200mm kit lens at 200mm & f/5.6. (The third pic is a little rough IQ-wise as it comes from an accidentally overcompressed OOC JPEG and I don't currently have the RAW handy.)

Edit: added a fourth pic, of my namesake guitar, taken a few months ago with an E-M1 and Oly 12–40/2.8 lens at 40mm and f/2.8.

-Dave-

[Paulo Bizarro]

In my case, the limitation of 4/3 sensor became obvious when I tested the EM-1 for long exposures at dawn or dusk. This was in the range between say a couple of minutes to half an hour. The battery duration was also a problem. So, in the end, I kept my Canon 6D and the 16-35 f4 lens.

If you want to go the MILC way, and keep your FF reference, get a Sony A7 series camera. FF, and even cheaper than some Oly cameras... and about the same size.

[Tony Ventouris Photography]

I am coming from a similar place.  I have a full canon setup with 5D2, 35L, 24-105L, 70-200L, 50 1.4, etc...  I found when traveling I also took the zooms, and rarely the primes.  That being said F/4 on the 5D2 vs F/5.6 on the E-M1 with the 12-40 and 40-150 but with F/2.8 worth of shutter speed...I chose the Olympus hands down.  It can focus closer and offers many more benefits.  Close focus is insane.  Virtually macro.  (12-40 does 1:3 I believe...)  For most shooting at telephoto ranges, I prefer the extra depth of field that m4/3 offers.  I can shoot faster and keep hand held speeds without the stopping down necessity. 

If you NEED shallow depth of field, the faster primes will do it.  The Panasonic 25mm 1.4, 45 1.2, etc... are great.  I have the Oly 17 1.8.  No it does not give you the 35L wide open 3D effect at 10 feet...but its still a good lens.  Especially because you can get so close with it, which then creates bokeh due to foreground/background separation.

What haunted me for a long time is sensor size.  I come from shooting medium format backs on tech cameras for my work.  Obviously the resolution is not there for sheer size.  Its also not there for long exposures like a P45+ for example.  High ISO is plenty decent.  5D2 is cleaner...but E-m1 is just as usable.  The key is exposure.  Give the e-m1 more exposure while being careful of highlights and you get clean images printable to 22 inches.  I have printed even larger and they are fine.  Once you get past the sensor size, you would be amazed what the E-m1 can do. 

We have to be real as well.  What do you actually do with your work?  The largest prints I have hanging in my home are a 60"x40" 12 minute exposure, and a 150"x24" stitched panorama.  Both were taken with an X100 which is even lower megapixels.  Both prints are excellent.  The panorama has details for DAYS.  Plan your shot well, and do what you need to maximize the sensor.  Just because you can do "anything" wit ha set up doesn't mean you do.  And if you wait for that one million in one shot to happen...you will get it if you know how to capture it in the moment with what you have, not by having everything that you could potentially use. 

The E-m1 has the best camera body ive ever used.  I prefer its customization, especially once you spend time really learning it and utilizing its custom sets.  You never have to dive back into the menu for anything.  You can also see better in the dark with its viewfinder than the optical on a 5D2. 

Each tool has its use.  I still have a 5D2 for specific situations.  I shoot medium format for work.  Ide love to shoot the E-m1...but tech cams are the proper tool for my work.  The E-m1 handles everything else.  Especially landscape and nature.   

[Tony Ventouris Photography]

Here is a collection of recent images I shot with the E-m1.  Info and slightly larger sizes are available for viewing.  Please respect copyright and dont repost them anywhere.

http://www.tonyventourisphoto.com/Blog-photos/SVP/EM1-Review/n-k3t9L/i-GrcPQ83

Most of these are fun shots taken while I was learning the camera.  The last 3 pairs of images on the last page are comparisons.  

The left image is the E-M1, the right image is a Phase One P45.  The E-m1 was used as a scouting camera.  The P45 images were made weeks later on the actual shoot.  The E-m1 images were also not color correct for final delivery and generally higher ISO.  You can see how damn well they hold their own.  If I had shot in a tripod and maximized my technique, they would have been even closer and noiseless.  

Most of the shots in the gallery are handheld, and a LOT of them are high ISO.  There is a mix of subject matter too from bug eyes to astrophotography.  Should give you a good idea of what it can do.

Anything that looks like a macro shot is done with the 12-40.  No actual macro lens was used.

[Centauri]

Thanks for your reply, Ancient City Photo.

It's exactly what I had in mind. And I really like most of your pictures. Was that beach picture taken in sardinia?
Well those comparison pics do hold very well against each other (given the circumstances) and its a good example that the camera does not make the picture but the composition, subject and idea does. Yeah you can see the better quality of P45 but those pictures still help me for my decision.

It's a decicion of good enough or horses for courses

[aduke]

Here is a collection of recent images I shot with the E-m1.  Info and slightly larger sizes are available for viewing.  Please respect copyright and dont repost them anywhere.

http://www.tonyventourisphoto.com/Blog-photos/SVP/EM1-Review/n-k3t9L/i-GrcPQ83

Most of these are fun shots taken while I was learning the camera.  The last 3 pairs of images on the last page are comparisons.  

The left image is the E-M1, the right image is a Phase One P45.  The E-m1 was used as a scouting camera.  The P45 images were made weeks later on the actual shoot.  The E-m1 images were also not color correct for final delivery and generally higher ISO.  You can see how damn well they hold their own.  If I had shot in a tripod and maximized my technique, they would have been even closer and noiseless.  

Most of the shots in the gallery are handheld, and a LOT of them are high ISO.  There is a mix of subject matter too from bug eyes to astrophotography.  Should give you a good idea of what it can do.

Anything that looks like a macro shot is done with the 12-40.  No actual macro lens was used.

Tony, that is an impressive series of images. Thank you for posting them. Viewing them will be helpful to me in the near future.

Alan

[Tony Ventouris Photography]

That beach was actually St. Croix on a nature preserve. 

I shoot commercial architectural photography as a career.  I actually rent a lot depending on assignments.  I only buy what I use daily.  I've used a lot of different gear.

My philosophy on buying cameras is this. 

Does a camera, or lens, or whatever piece of gear, ENABLE me in some way that something else doesn't.  Does X camera enable me to shoot in a way I find beneficial that I was unable to before which leads me closer to the images I like to make.  If it does, I consider the gear.  If it doesn't, I don't even bother with it regardless how much I like it.  There are lots of cameras I LOOOVE...but I just can't bring myself to owning them. 

Examples: The 5DmkII was a major turning point for me.  It enabled me to compose in live view.  It enabled me to produce images at a resolution that was enough for 99% of everything I did at the time without upressing.  It enabled me to produce video clips and capture sound if I needed to take notes.  It enabled me to capture more accurate color and tone.  (14bit)  It also enabled me to not worry about noise regardless my shooting condition.  When it came out, it was the first camera capable of this in a small body that was affordable.  I paid in full on pre-order day 1.  (i havent upgraded from that either since nothing canon has released has enabled what I use canons for in any way more significant.)  It enabled me to capture what I was shooting in a dramatically better way than what was currently available on the market.

E-M1:  The E-m1 enabled me to get closer without changing lenses.  In my personal photography, this is HUGE.   Close focusing distance is very important to me.  The fact that many of the oly lenses focus at ridiculously close distances is image changing.  Their 40-150 2.8 focuses at less than 2 feet at a 300mm equivalent!  When using primes like the 25mm and the 17mm especially, it is wonderful to be able to get just that much closer to fill the frame when needed.  I actually prefer a very close up perspective.  Not having to switch lenses or carry a macro lens enables me to shoot different.  The E-m1 also enabled me to shed weight and handhold focal lengths that were impossible to me.  I can hand hold 400mm equivalent on the E-m1 without hand shake.  This is entirely impossible for me on a DSLR.  When I travel, I can carry less tripod, and have less weight overall and still capture images exactly how I prefer.  I lose nothing. I love shooting nature photography up close, and the E-m1 enabled me to shoot this in a much more freeing way.  For me it was worth it. 

Think about what you shoot.  Not potentially, what you could shoot, or what "scenarios" might come up, what shots missed, etc...   Think about what you love to shoot.  And then think about if whatever camera you consider enables you to do your work in some way better.  Is it better enough to make it worth it?  Maybe what you give up are things that make no difference to you.  Focus on what enables you to create in a better way and you will always end up with gear that inspires you to continue shooting. 



 

[AFairley]

I found the IQ of the E-M5 surprisingly close to the D800e, at least on 17x22 prints.  Yes there is a difference, but it does not jump out at you.  However the Oly files required much more care in PP to get there than the Nikon's.

[Centauri]

. 

Think about what you shoot.  Not potentially, what you could shoot, or what "scenarios" might come up, what shots missed, etc...   Think about what you love to shoot.  And then think about if whatever camera you consider enables you to do your work in some way better.  Is it better enough to make it worth it?  Maybe what you give up are things that make no difference to you.  Focus on what enables you to create in a better way and you will always end up with gear that inspires you to continue shooting. 

 

Thanks for your insightful thoughts!
My philosophy on buying cameras so far was this: I don't care too much about the body, but the lenses. Well okay, I have a full frame cam and that was important to me for creative options and "clean" images as well as a big range of lenses to choose from. I like being creative and do different uproaches. Sometimes I go with an UWA sometimes with a macro only. I often need 1.4 at ISO 3200 when sitting with some friends at a restaurant in the evening or on a little party. Sometimes I use flash but I like the look of natural light there. FF is so flexible and good for what I shoot and like. (Not to speak of weddings, my porty flash or high res stuff)

But I think the OMD's have probably enough going for them to be a real consideration: Less weight, IBIS, creative options in live composite...and high ISO is getting better too.


An OMD is probably similar for landscape and walkaround - maybe even better because its much lighter. I just have to look for the pros and cons and if its worth it for me. Imagine I go on a photography holiday trip equipped only with an oly. Would I miss too much and what positive things do I get? The feel if a 1.4 lens on FF? High ISO good enough for me in the evening -> I think YES, because of IBIS and because 1.4 on FF can sometimes be a disadvantage in the evening.

I think weight is still one of the most important things for me, because 50% of what I shoot involves travelling. Otherwise I wouldn't think about another system, cause my 5D2 does an impressive job for nearly everything I love to shoot. And for weddings, some model shootings I will still keep them and for the 35 1.4 feel.


I will probably get one soon and try it for myself.
Thanks to everyone in this thread.