Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: armand on April 22, 2016, 10:06:14 am
-
I currently have the Nikon (full frame and DX) and the Fuji and for travel if I really want to bring all the lenses that I want the Nikon becomes quite cumbersome.
Fuji is more manageable but I would like something more weather resistant if possible, particularly on the zoom side (I'm not that impressed by the 18-135) and with even less weight and bulk. The primes are mostly very nice but I have to take many to cover same ranges and I am somehow lazy (either to walk and change perspective or change the lenses as often as I would like).
I keep thinking about the m43 as an alternative for light travel (family or hiking) and so far I was put off by the m43 noise even at lower iso and lack of a perfect camera ;) (currently the E-M5 II has the brains and the E-M1 has the body). I probably could live with the noise especially as I would shoot mostly at lower isos, landscapes in particularly with or without tripod.
The reason why I'm suddenly more interested is because I had a friend with a GX8 and an Oly 12-40 2.8 and I've been pleasantly surprised by how small and light the zoom was, for a wethersealed zoom that is.
GX8 left me unimpressed, grip is larger but handling feels more awkward compared to the X-T1 and it's probably the same size.
I would get the E-M5 II with the Oly 12-40 2.8 and the Pana 35-100 2.8 and maybe the 7-14 2.8, plus a couple of primes. The Pana zooms because they are much lighter without a large loss in IQ and this move is for lower weight and bulk. The Pana also has nice sales until tomorrow.
Compared to Fuji I would be on plus for landscapes (more DOF for the same ISO) and for any stationary opportunities that would benefit from more DOF. I would lose the lower light higher shutter needed opportunities (larger sensor and faster lenses on the Fuji side) as well the less DOF situations.
I have to calculate exactly how much weight I would save.
So after this long digression the question is for those who used both how do they feel they compare and if the above rationale makes sense?
Thanks
-
For whatever it's worth this is a weight comparison between the m43, Fuji APS-C, Sony full frame mirrorless and Nikon full frame, for a travel system.
21 mm (prime ideally, or zooms if prime not available)
35 mm prime
85 mm prime
"normal" zoom
telephoto zoom (can be replaced with a shorter but faster telephoto prime)
-
I would get the E-M5 II with the Oly 12-40 2.8 and the Pana 35-100 2.8 and maybe the 7-14 2.8, plus a couple of primes. The Pana zooms because they are much lighter without a large loss in IQ and this move is for lower weight and bulk. The Pana also has nice sales until tomorrow.
Just a remark that your "the Pana zooms" doesn't match your list, as it's plural but you subbed Oly normal zoom for the 12-35/2.8 Pany one --which would be lighter by a good deal, I think. I have what you list, but w/Pana 7-14/4 not the newer (bigger & heavier & pricier --I shop *used*-- 2.8 weatherized Oly). Not only is the 35-100/2.8 lighter (than 12-40, & esp. 40-150), it doesn't change length in zooming. (The Oly zooms both (all 3?) offer somewhat closer focusing distance.)
Also, you might want to handle an E-M5 vs. -M1 :: I find the -M5 lousy in hand sans grip, and the Oly grip adds a redundant landscape-mode shutter & electronics & ... weight; maybe some 3rd-party one will give just *grip* w/o the weight gain? As for "brains", what's that amount to --esp. in light of the latest firmware upgrade for the E-M1, which seemed to offer some significant pluses?
Cheers,
-d.
-
The Panasonic zooms (12-35 and 35-100) are definitely smaller feeling overall. The Oly Pro lenses are "big" when it comes to m43. Then again, for what you get, they can spoil you very quickly. For nature, the Oly lenses are amazing because of their close focus. You get a 1:3 mag, so near macro. The 40-150 2.8 will render an object on frame virtually the same size from its closest distance as the 12-40. So 150mm at MFD, compared to to the 12-40 at 40mm and MFD. It's quite a change in the way you work if you are into close up nature photography. It is a pleasure not having to switch lenses as often because of things like this.
If you have never felt the E-M1 I would give it a shot. You can get them for the same price as an E-M5mkII now...or less used. It is by far the better feeling and handling body. Olympus nailed it's feel especially if you put an L-bracket it on it. The extra couple millimeters of metal added to the bottom make the E-M1 the perfect size.
I think you will be surprised at how competent the 12-40 is for the purporse you are after. It's one of those lenses you never want to take off. And aside from gaining a stop or two, you gain almost nothing by going to the primes for most purposes. Its really that good a zoom.
Depends what you need. I use to do a lot of my travel photography with an X100 and a Leica M8 with a 75mm lens before I got into M43. That's all I needed. Even the fuji with two primes or the nikon with two small primes makes a decent travel kit. Just once you start adding zooms, filters, telephoto...etc... even APS-C starts getting big.
-
I keep thinking about the m43 as an alternative for light travel (family or hiking) and so far I was put off by the m43 noise even at lower iso and lack of a perfect camera ;)
I keep reading about MFT noise at lower ISO but I just don't see it. When shooting normally I ETTR or at the least go for a cursor smack in the middle exposure and I rarely if ever consciously under expose and apply large amounts of boost post capture so perhaps that's where I'm going wrong? I do pixel peep even though I shouldn't but still I don't see it. Maybe I should try harder?
There has been at least one thread here recently regarding MFT noise and I'm sure there are others on line and whenever I think that the gear I have isn't good enough a quick Google to what others are achieving with the same or more humble gear usually convinces me that the gear isn't the issue.
MFT may not be the pinnacle of photography gear nirvana but I don't know what is or where I can buy a perfect camera.
When out waking or on holiday I'm not too sure that I need perfection or that I need to produce several meter wide gallery quality prints and I therefore settle for a balance of portability and acceptable image quality and surprisingly I even get pictures which are acceptable to me from MFT even when straying from lower ISO's.
Maybe you could take a fresh look at MFT and try and see what your problem is with low ISO images and how/if they can be overcome?
-
Maybe just get say an Olympus EPL6 which are going for $300 here in the US. They are tiny and have an articulating screen. Use it for interesting hand held compositions that you would never dare with your Nikon. This is where you will SEE a difference. The Fuji already has a digital view finder. The problem is you will then want an entire collection of m4/3 lenses as well.
-
Just a remark that your "the Pana zooms" doesn't match your list, as it's plural but you subbed Oly normal zoom for the 12-35/2.8 Pany one --which would be lighter by a good deal, I think. I have what you list, but w/Pana 7-14/4 not the newer (bigger & heavier & pricier --I shop *used*-- 2.8 weatherized Oly). Not only is the 35-100/2.8 lighter (than 12-40, & esp. 40-150), it doesn't change length in zooming. (The Oly zooms both (all 3?) offer somewhat closer focusing distance.)
Also, you might want to handle an E-M5 vs. -M1 :: I find the -M5 lousy in hand sans grip, and the Oly grip adds a redundant landscape-mode shutter & electronics & ... weight; maybe some 3rd-party one will give just *grip* w/o the weight gain? As for "brains", what's that amount to --esp. in light of the latest firmware upgrade for the E-M1, which seemed to offer some significant pluses?
Cheers,
-d.
The reason I would get the Olympus 12-40 2.8 instead of the Pana 12-35 2.8 is that it will be the lens on the camera most of the times and I think the step in quality it's worth the trade for few grams extra. On the other hand the other 2 zooms from Olympus are just too big compared to the Pana (and a focal length less used) so there the weight savings are worth it.
I did hold the original E-M5 long time ago and I got a Fuji after ;) (that and the fact the Fuji had a much better kit lens). That's why I would certainly prefer the E-M1 body. I have some concerns though for E-M1 shutter (shutter shock, problems in cold weather, etc). The E-M5 also has the super resolution mode (or something like it) that might be worthwhile and better movies.
Ideally I would get the E-M1 mark ii but it doesn't exist yet.
PS. I could just buy the Pana zooms on sale and wait for the E-M1 mark ii but there is no way I can hold myself for so long.
-
I have the Pana 12-35. I think it is the sharpest lens I've ever used. Video from my GH4 is out of this world.
Edmund
The reason I would get the Olympus 12-40 2.8 instead of the Pana 12-35 2.8 is that it will be the lens on the camera most of the times and I think the step in quality it's worth the trade for few grams extra. On the other hand the other 2 zooms from Olympus are just too big compared to the Pana (and a focal length less used) so there the weight savings are worth it.
I did hold the original E-M5 long time ago and I got a Fuji after ;) (that and the fact the Fuji had a much better kit lens). That's why I would certainly prefer the E-M1 body. I have some concerns though for E-M1 shutter (shutter shock, problems in cold weather, etc). The E-M5 also has the super resolution mode (or something like it) that might be worthwhile and better movies.
Ideally I would get the E-M1 mark ii but it doesn't exist yet.
PS. I could just buy the Pana zooms on sale and wait for the E-M1 mark ii but there is no way I can hold myself for so long.
-
I use MFT whenever I travel. The light weight is a pleasure. I usually make slide shows that i display on my Hdtv and soon to purchase UHDTV. I rarely print. ( you didn't mention what you intend to do with your final pictures). You can get smaller pictures as well with MFT.
So the first question is what do you do with the images from your travels?
-
Most will not be printed (large at least) but some will get printed up to 16x22 or so, maybe 3-5/trip if I get lucky.
-
I currently have the Nikon (full frame and DX) and the Fuji and for travel if I really want to bring all the lenses that I want the Nikon becomes quite cumbersome.
Fuji is more manageable but I would like something more weather resistant if possible, particularly on the zoom side (I'm not that impressed by the 18-135) and with even less weight and bulk. The primes are mostly very nice but I have to take many to cover same ranges and I am somehow lazy (either to walk and change perspective or change the lenses as often as I would like).
I keep thinking about the m43 as an alternative for light travel (family or hiking) and so far I was put off by the m43 noise even at lower iso and lack of a perfect camera ;) (currently the E-M5 II has the brains and the E-M1 has the body). I probably could live with the noise especially as I would shoot mostly at lower isos, landscapes in particularly with or without tripod.
The reason why I'm suddenly more interested is because I had a friend with a GX8 and an Oly 12-40 2.8 and I've been pleasantly surprised by how small and light the zoom was, for a wethersealed zoom that is.
GX8 left me unimpressed, grip is larger but handling feels more awkward compared to the X-T1 and it's probably the same size.
I would get the E-M5 II with the Oly 12-40 2.8 and the Pana 35-100 2.8 and maybe the 7-14 2.8, plus a couple of primes. The Pana zooms because they are much lighter without a large loss in IQ and this move is for lower weight and bulk. The Pana also has nice sales until tomorrow.
Compared to Fuji I would be on plus for landscapes (more DOF for the same ISO) and for any stationary opportunities that would benefit from more DOF. I would lose the lower light higher shutter needed opportunities (larger sensor and faster lenses on the Fuji side) as well the less DOF situations.
I have to calculate exactly how much weight I would save.
So after this long digression the question is for those who used both how do they feel they compare and if the above rationale makes sense?
Thanks
I use the both the E-M1 and the E-M5ii, with the Oly 12-40 Pro Zoom and the Pana 35-100 zoom, as well as the Oly 60 mm macro and the Pana Leica 25 mm prime. I really don't understand your concern about low ISO noise. In my hands, I am not seeing that. In fact, noise is well controlled by simple adjustment in LR up to ISO 3200. As a previous user of a Canon 5Dii and comparable L lenses, I can say that the my M43 kit, outlined above, comfortably outperforms the Canon on prints up to 17x22 inches, due to its superior lenses. I can also speculate that with good technique, one can easily print up to 30 inches on the long side. With regard to the lenses mentioned above, my experience is that they are better than their Canon L counterparts and most are weatherproof, to boot. The M1 and M5ii have very useful features that Canon does not offer, making the photographic experience more satisfying. For example, focus bracketing, IBIS, HDR-modes, and many customization possibilities. The E-M5ii has a high resolution mode that yields IQ comparable to the Nikon 810 under static conditions. It is true that a modern FF camera system will clearly outperform m43 at high enough enlargement and or very low light. If you are a photographer who frequently needs that capability, the decision is FF. But otherwise, pay no attention to those who claim that m43 is not up to the task.
-
I have the Pana 12-35. I think it is the sharpest lens I've ever used. Video from my GH4 is out of this world.
Edmund
If I was more into video it would have been the favorite, plus a Pana camera. I will shoot the occasional video but otherwise I find it too time consuming.
Both are sharp but the Olympus seems to have a better performance, particularly wide open, between 12 to 25 while Pana is superior between 25 to 35.
-
Well, the Pana 35-100 2.8 is on its way. I'll also get the Oly 12-40 2.8 with likely the E-M5 ii with a L-plate with grip.
Now I have to decide on primes. It's easy to lose focus and forget why I'm getting this system, eg for light high quality travel/hiking and not as a full system.
I'll probably get the Oly macro for when I expect lots of opportunities but it's not essential.
I likely want to cover the 85 mm range with a faster prime: Oly 45 1.8, Pana 42.5 1.7? (42.5 1.2 Nocticron is a little too heavy and pricey)
Normal range low light. I used to be into the 50mm range and still like but after using the 23 1.4 on my Fuji I will have to admit that 35mm is definitely more versatile. The lens in this area has to be fast.
The Panaleica 25 1.4 is the fastest but the Oly 17 1.8 is more versatile. Kind of in between is also the pancake 20 1.7. Any experiences with these?
I gave up for now on the idea of a ultra wide, the only one was the Pana 7-14 4.0 as the Oly is too heavy and there are no light primes shorter than 24mm (equivalent) that I could see. I don't use ultra wide that often too justify another 300g (and 900$ as the sale went away). Maybe the 8mm fisheye from Pana? How does is look after defishing, if it can be done?
-
I likely want to cover the 85 mm range with a faster prime: Oly 45 1.8. The lens in this area has to be fast.
The Panaleica 25 1.4 is the fastest but the Oly 17 1.8 is more versatile. Kind of in between is also the pancake 20 1.7. Any experiences with these?
I have the 45 f/1.8, great lens all around... 17 f/1.7 much faster to focus then the 20 f1.7, but I like the 40 Field of view of the 20mm better for street. With the 20, I zone manual focus, with f/8 for DOF. I use these three lenses all the time. I much prefer primes over zooms.
Peter
-
I have the 45 f/1.8, great lens all around... 17 f/1.7 much faster to focus then the 20 f1.7, but I like the 40 Field of view of the 20mm better for street. With the 20, I zone manual focus, with f/8 for DOF. I use these three lenses all the time. I much prefer primes over zooms.
Peter
I like the 20mm view as well...but I honestly couldn't live with its focus speed. Maybe for some things its fine, but for even general use, it was noticeably slow on the E-M1 to focus. Maybe better on Pana bodies...but it was slow. I stuck to the Oly 17.
-
I gave up for now on the idea of a ultra wide, the only one was the Pana 7-14 4.0 as the Oly is too heavy and there are no light primes shorter than 24mm (equivalent) that I could see. I don't use ultra wide that often too justify another 300g (and 900$ as the sale went away). Maybe the 8mm fisheye from Pana? How does is look after defishing, if it can be done?
Sure it can! NOt trying to advertise, but don't want to repeat everything either. I have an entire write up about defishing with this gear.
https://unlockingolympus.com/2016/02/defishing-the-fisheye/ (https://unlockingolympus.com/2016/02/defishing-the-fisheye/)
Basically, it works great. The better the fisheye, the better the defish as well.
-
Both are sharp but the Olympus seems to have a better performance, particularly wide open, between 12 to 25 while Pana is superior between 25 to 35.
I own both lenses (Oly 12–40 & Pana 12–35mm). I can't tell the difference between my samples.
-Dave-
-
I am familiar with the 40mm view as in a recent trip I only took an X-E1 with the 27mm 2.8 (and shot in b&w simulation also :) ) but if focus speed is not that fast I would rather choose between the 17 1.8 and 25 1.4.
-
Sure it can! NOt trying to advertise, but don't want to repeat everything either. I have an entire write up about defishing with this gear.
https://unlockingolympus.com/2016/02/defishing-the-fisheye/ (https://unlockingolympus.com/2016/02/defishing-the-fisheye/)
Basically, it works great. The better the fisheye, the better the defish as well.
Thanks, I might get it. A little apprehensive as I've never shot with a fisheye before.
-
My 17 1.8, 45 1.8 and 75 1.8 are probably sharper than any of my Nikon lenses (24-70 2.8, 70-200 f4 etc.). The 75mm is exceptional and would cost over $2000 if manufactured for a Nikon full frame. Narrow depth of field a problem with micro 4/3 - maybe not.
-
I really like the m4/3 lenses, especially the primes. Small, light, sharp. The Oly 45mm f/1.8 is quite good and really tiny. The focus on the Panny 20mm isn't really all that slow and the image quality is nice, but I'd probably get the Oly 12 and 25 instead. In fact, round out the set with 12, 25, 45, and 75, and the three zooms. All of that fits in a tiny shoulder bag.
Full disclosure, I moved to Fuji several years ago, but I still like those little m4/3 lenses. :)
-
I really like the m4/3 lenses, especially the primes. Small, light, sharp. The Oly 45mm f/1.8 is quite good and really tiny. The focus on the Panny 20mm isn't really all that slow and the image quality is nice, but I'd probably get the Oly 12 and 25 instead. In fact, round out the set with 12, 25, 45, and 75, and the three zooms. All of that fits in a tiny shoulder bag.
Full disclosure, I moved to Fuji several years ago, but I still like those little m4/3 lenses. :)
As I said, I'm keeping simple and I have on order the 2 zooms and the 17 1.8 plus 45 1.8. I already feel like I'm betraying Fuji (curiously I don't care that much how Nikon feels ;D ).
It would make sense to have m43 and full frame but I already bought into Fuji and I have no foreseeable plans to give up on them.
-
I Really like the Olympus m43 cameras and especially the holy trinity of 7-14mm, 12-40mm, 40-150 PRO lenses. That said, even at 200 ISO I find the sensor noise way too much and here is where Fuji with its X-Trans sensor excels. In the end I have chosen for Fuji.
-
As I said above, I'm keeping the Fuji. On the downside I never warmed up to the xtrans idea.
I am somehow mentally prepared for the noise in m43, after all it shouldn't be worse than my RX100 which is decent. There is no alternative in Fuji for smaller weather sealed zooms, particularly in the telephoto area. I hope I'll be able to put up with the fiddly buttons on the E-M5 or the articulated screen (I prefer the tilt only). I'm excited though about using the live preview, high resolution mode or touch to focus/shoot.
As for a wide angle lens I'll wait for the DL 18-50 to come out and if it's decent it will serve double duty, wide angle lens and backup.
-
PS. I was also looking to use stabilized primes but the reality is that if you have people in the shot and you are not looking for a ghostly look the faster primes and larger sensor in Fuji will get you farther. Might help for longer telephoto primes but there aren't that many of those.
-
As I said above, I'm keeping the Fuji. On the downside I never warmed up to the xtrans idea.
I am somehow mentally prepared for the noise in m43, after all it shouldn't be worse than my RX100 which is decent. There is no alternative in Fuji for smaller weather sealed zooms, particularly in the telephoto area. I hope I'll be able to put up with the fiddly buttons on the E-M5 or the articulated screen (I prefer the tilt only). I'm excited though about using the live preview, high resolution mode or touch to focus/shoot.
As for a wide angle lens I'll wait for the DL 18-50 to come out and if it's decent it will serve double duty, wide angle lens and backup.
Hi armand,
You are worrying too much. No system is perfect but it actually seems as though m43 will be a good fit for you. To get its full measure, you have to embrace what it does, not what it doesn't.
The Oly in body image stabilization system (IBIS) yields about four stops advantage when hand-holding a shot. That is true of prime and zoom, alike. You are right that subject movement is still a problem. The only option is to increase the ISO and the shutter speed. As I wrote before, ISO 1600 is still excellent and ISO 3200 is good, both with NR adjusted in the raw converter. Noise will be more of a problem if you don't give full exposure when you increase ISO. The solution is to expose to the right. I most often bias the exposure +1. Sadly, I have seen experienced photographers on this forum bad-mouth the IQ because despite their years of experience they don't understand how to use their histogram.
As I wrote before, I find overall IQ better with either the E-M1 or the E-M5ii than I got with the Canon 5Dii. It's not a little better; it is quite noticeable, better color, better highlights, no banding.
The E-M1 is still a viable option. Ergonomically, it feels great in hand (except for the off/on switch) and the rear display tilts, as you prefer. The E-M1 body-grip is more pleasant than on the E-M5ii. If you go the E-M5ii route maybe consider adding the battery grip. I use an L-plate on both my Oly bodies and I think that does not play well with the battery grip.
Finally, regarding lens speed, there really seems little difference in the offerings for m43 and Fuji. Considering that Panasonic and Oly lenses work interchangeably, there is great flexibility. For example, if you want a fast prime there is the Pana-Leica 25mm f 1.4, a really sweet lens for street shooting and portrait work. The Oly 75 mm f1.8 prime is considered to be exceptional. There are really fast lenses available from Nocticron and Voigtlander, f0.95!
-
I am somehow mentally prepared for the noise in m43, after all it shouldn't be worse than my RX100 which is decent.
For me it's not an issue. But then, when all three films were available, I preferred Kodachrome 200 to K64 or 25. I'll often go for a photo with grain/noise rather than one without so long as the grain/noise is monochromatic. IMO texture is Good. YMMV.
-Dave-
-
I keep seeing the 75mm mentioned. Here is a comparison with the 90mm from Fuji: http://www.mirrorlessons.com/2016/04/18/fuji-90mm-vs-olympus-75mm
I do consider the 90 to be the best Fuji lens that I used though (didn't touch their "pro" zooms).
And while we are at it what's with the stupid thing in Olympus that you have to buy the lens hoods separately? >:(
-
I am seriously considering buying into the Fuji system. Since you guys have so much experience with Fuji and mirrorless cameras, I have a question for you.
Is there a lag between pressing the shutter release and actuation? I do a lot of in-camera motion work and much of what I do depends on a fast actuation after shutter release. I tried a few of the point and shoots and they are mightily slow in comparison. Even tried a Sony 711, and it seemed rather slow. Unfortunately I was only able to use it for about two shots and couldn't investigate whether it was some mode that was causing the slowness or whether I was in electronic mode so couldn't really hear the actuation.
Any feedback would be appreciated.
JR
-
I don't know how many people use off camera lights...but I love the fact that I do get more dof with the olympus sized sensor while still retaining the fast lens speed. At F/1.8 my light certainly recycle quicker due to being at a lower light levels. 1/320 sync speed also helps make up a bit outdoors. Most of the time the extra DOF is appreciated, especially when working up close. I have rarely if ever felt I needed shallower and shallower depth of field than i've been able to produce.
Shooting these little portrait lenses that are sharp wide open is a joy.
-
Neither the fujis or the olympus have any real world perceptible lag that will ruin your shot... if, like any camera you set it up right.
Ideally you can opt for the camera not to wait for focus confirmation before firing should you need the shot more than the focus. You can also separate the focus to another button. That way the shutter does that, and only that when you need it...fires the shutter. That speeds things up. Olympus also has an "extra sensitive mode" that makes the shutter basically hair trigger ready. It is not a recommended mode. I don't believe fuji has that option.
In the older Fuji models, if you were trying to focus on a moving object, sometimes the viewfinder would lag in that moment. It wouldn't stall the shutter, but it would make tracking something a bit odd. In reality, the shutter lag is not an issue at all in any of the latest models.
-
I am seriously considering buying into the Fuji system. Since you guys have so much experience with Fuji and mirrorless cameras, I have a question for you.
Is there a lag between pressing the shutter release and actuation? I do a lot of in-camera motion work and much of what I do depends on a fast actuation after shutter release. I tried a few of the point and shoots and they are mightily slow in comparison. Even tried a Sony 711, and it seemed rather slow. Unfortunately I was only able to use it for about two shots and couldn't investigate whether it was some mode that was causing the slowness or whether I was in electronic mode so couldn't really hear the actuation.
Any feedback would be appreciated.
JR
Easiest is to set the shutter mode to release only without focus confirmation.
If already in focus I can't say I notice a significant shutter lag.
-
Well, in-camera motion photography involves prefocus and then switching to manual focus, that is the mode I would use. You don't want the lens hunting while you're moving the camera. Thanks for the information, Tony and Armand.
Tony, I saw on your website that you were experimenting with the multi-exposure mode on the Olympus. How many exposures can one take on one frame? The maximum these days is 10 on the higher end Nikon and Canon DSLR's. My Pentax takes 9. I wish they would do 20 per frame. That would really expand the possibilities for impressionist work. If you want to see what I am trying to achieve with multiple exposures or In-camera motion techniques have a look here:
https://johnroias.smugmug.com/Camera-Impressions/
Thanks again.
JR
-
Hey John,
Olympus will allow 2 shots in multi-exposure mode, and you can control how it handles the gain between the two images. 2 modes, first lets you take two images which get combined. The second mode allows you to first select a previously shot image and then make the second exposure by taking a shot.
So you can only do two images, and it outputs a raw file. I assume they were bring in the old "skip the winding of a film frame" feel to this and left it at two which was the most typical for users.
I never noticed...do the Canon's and Nikons really allow up to 10 images to be shot and combined into one raw frame? I must have missed this feature...or never paid attention to it.
-
I got about an hour playtime with E-M5 and lenses so I have after first impressions.
The E-M5 with the Oly 12-40 2.8 is roughly as big or heavy as the Fuji X-T1 with the kit lens. I already knew this but actually having in hand gives you a slight disappointment.
The camera feel is ok even without the L-plate with grip but I think it will be quite tricky with gloves to press all those tiny buttons.
The menu is unfriendly to say the least. Hopefully I won't need to dig much into it once set up. The Fuji is much more direct and simple; part is not knowing the camera of course. I rarely read the manual with a camera but it looks I won't get away this time.
Focus speed seemed ok, not blazing fast as I was expecting; no direct head to head comparison yet but Fuji is not that far behind.
The primes are quite small.
AutoISO doesn't seem to be that flexible. I have to look into this as usually I shoot in aperture priority with autoISO so I only change the aperture and the exposure compensation, rarely the metering or the focus mode.
To be continued.
-
The menu is a monster that just needs a a little bit of familiarity to tame. Once you set the camera is desired, you never have to dive in again. Quick tip...if you are setting the menu up... make sure you leave the menu to go back in to shooting mode and then turn the camera OFF. This will save your settings. If you remove the battery, or the camera somehow gets shut off before the menu settings store, you will have to redo them. I can get through setting every item in the custom menu in about 5 - 10 minutes now including making my presets, etc... Its really not that much.
For AutoISO go to menu, custom settings, Custom menu E ISO.
From there you can set ISO step, what modes AutoISO is active in, and the range for where Auto ISO works. You can set its strived for default value and a high limit not to be exceeded.
I set mine to a default value of 200 ISO (the base) and the highest value as 5000 ISO. 6400 and above is pushed, so I stick with just the real ones.
From there, the camera does pretty well at honoring the 1/focal length value pretty darn well as needed before raising the ISO. It balances nicely. I also keep my exposure compensation at +1 most of the time and then adjust as needed.
You can also customize your view to show just a plain image and exposure value view, and then turn on highlight warnings with the info button. This is great if you expose to the right. You can just leave highlight warnings on and adjust compensation til just highlight clipping or below. Great raw files.
-
Yes the higher end Nikons and Canons can do 10 images. Pentax does 9 and was probably the first to initiate multiple exposure capability- that is more than two per frame. It does have limited use, but it is just a software issue for camera companies to include this feature in their cameras.
JR
-
Few more thoughts
- if you are a Nikon user the zooms turn the wrong way; at least I could change the focus rotation but it might too confusing to keep them opposite
- noise is not an issue as I was worried before
- I think the metering on the E-M5 ii is underexposing a little
- the primes that I have (17 1.8 and 45 1.8) are quite small
- the L-plate with grip that I got on Amazon has some issues as in the grip is too big and with a wide lens you don't have much room between the grip and the lens barrel; if you take the grip away you are left with a protrusion on the bottom. The RRS grip doesn't seem to have this issues but at 180 it is overpriced no matter what they say; I'll have to decide if I really need a grip, otherwise I can just shave off the excess from the bottom plate that I have
-
I can't speak to Nikon, but I've used the ME modes on the Olympus and the Canon quite a bit. The Canon (5D3 and up) can do 9 images in sequence. However, you can use a prior image as the starting point, and since that can be an ME image, you can in effect go on until your battery runs out.
The other big feature of the Canon concerns the 4 different blend modes: average, additive, bright (from your photos it looks like this is what you are mostly using [the Pentax?], and dark (which afaik isn't available from any other manufacturer) And since you can start with a prior image, you can also use multiple blend modes in one image. Add to that changing exposure, and adding a bit of ICM, and the possibilities become very complex.
The Olympus only has the average mode, which is usual on cameras that have a single 2-image blend mode. It's pretty limited. I found the "live composite" feature more interesting - Olympus advertises it for doing star trails, but in effect it's an 'infinite' sequential ME using the bright blend mode, and with superb noise reduction - however, exposure is set throughout, and you can't pause during shooting.
Here are a couple of images using the Olympus' live composite:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/127622296@N07/23822113411/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/127622296@N07/25128659972/in/dateposted-public/
And a few ME images from the Canon:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/127622296@N07/23843124470/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/127622296@N07/22759941744/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/127622296@N07/18457616068/in/dateposted-public/
Bruce
-
Few more thoughts
- if you are a Nikon user the zooms turn the wrong way; at least I could change the focus rotation but it might too confusing to keep them opposite
- I think the metering on the E-M5 ii is underexposing a little
The zoom thing is a funny point you mention. I think a lot of people often overlook this. Coming from Canons, the Olympus zooms work in the same direction. My transition in all the gear I use is the same. Fuji's go the opposite way, as do the Nikons, and some others. I believe this is the same with the lens mount too. Not 100% certain. This is one of those things that if you cross systems often enough, its nice to keep in the flow.
All the olympus cameras seem to fare very well with about a stop of overexposure on the meter depending on the subject. I find this in both evaluative, and center weighted metering. So in a way, your finding may be correct.
-
The zoom thing is a funny point you mention. I think a lot of people often overlook this. Coming from Canons, the Olympus zooms work in the same direction. My transition in all the gear I use is the same. Fuji's go the opposite way, as do the Nikons, and some others. I believe this is the same with the lens mount too. Not 100% certain. This is one of those things that if you cross systems often enough, its nice to keep in the flow.
All the olympus cameras seem to fare very well with about a stop of overexposure on the meter depending on the subject. I find this in both evaluative, and center weighted metering. So in a way, your finding may be correct.
Coming from a Nikon + Fuji systems I didn't have this problem until now (I think the Tamron 150-600 that I have zooms the "wrong" way but I use very rarely).
-
Looking through the lens reviews at photozone I recalled one problem with the m43 lenses: they rely a little too much on software correction. Fuji is significantly better behaved although they have outliers also. Seeing that Leica also uses it I guess it's deemed an acceptable compromise for cost and size.
One possible gem: the Samyang 7.5mm 3.5 fisheye. Sharp, almost as light as the Pana and much much cheaper.
-
Coming from a Nikon + Fuji systems I didn't have this problem until now (I think the Tamron 150-600 that I have zooms the "wrong" way but I use very rarely).
In the Fuji menu you have the option to reverse lens focus direction...works just like my Canons now. A huge advantage with mirrorless.
Peter
-
In the Fuji menu you have the option to reverse lens focus direction...works just like my Canons now. A huge advantage with mirrorless.
Peter
Fuji has the same logic as Nikon so no problems here, Olympus on the other hand ...
I guess Fuji for you it's like Olympus for me; question is how do you cope with zoom and focus in opposite directions?
-
Fuji has the same logic as Nikon so no problems here, Olympus on the other hand ...
I guess Fuji for you it's like Olympus for me; question is how do you cope with zoom and focus in opposite directions?
In the Fuji menu I change the direction of focus to match the same direction as Canon...I only use primes.
Peter
-
...I only use primes.
Peter
Now I get it
-
In the Fuji menu you have the option to reverse lens focus direction...works just like my Canons now. A huge advantage with mirrorless.
Peter
True...but so does hasselblad. All the HCD lenses are made to be corrected in software before the user sees whats going on. You would think at the price of those lenses they would be perfect.
So m43 lenses need to get corrected. However... you dont see these adjustments nor can you turn them off in most software. Only a few raw developers dont recognize or apply them.
If you compare the uncorrected to the camera corrected files it is pretty interesting. You are not losing anything in the corrected files that you would miss. Honestly...I don't care how my baseline file gets to where it is...as long as it delivers. Whatever is baking into the file to correct for distortion and aberration, they do a darn good job of it. Honestly that is one area where Olympus delivers...their lenses live up to the name. I know my Oly Pro lenses are equal or superior to all my L glass. And that's even "after" their software corrections. Then again, my 24-105L has nightmarish distortion and that was "good enough" to be L grade for everyone without corrections. Pity. Then again, Everyone who is publishing awesome work with these software corrected lenses doesn't seem to be complaining. The only people ive ever heard make noise about this issue are reviewers posting charts.
Again, just my opinion from real world use with these lenses.
-
Looking through the lens reviews at photozone I recalled one problem with the m43 lenses: they rely a little too much on software correction.
I strongly suspect certain of the lenses have been designed with software correction in mind. Others may benefit from it without, depending on your tolerance level, requiring it. The Pana-Leica 25/1.4 is an example of the former. Uncorrected it exhibits noticeable barrel distortion. But the barreling is smooth in character, as opposed to mustache-y, and so easily correctable.
One possible gem: the Samyang 7.5mm 3.5 fisheye. Sharp, almost as light as the Pana and much much cheaper.
Yes, this is an excellent lens. Crazy sharp.
-Dave-
-
The Oly 75mm f/1.8 is a stunning lens. It's a bit pricey, but well worth it.
-
It's difficult to justify the 75 1.8 for a travel system when I already have the Fuji 90 2.0 which is even better.
As we are at it today I finally got to play with the Pana 35-100 2.8. This is where the size advantage of m43 becomes really apparent.
First shots were more like wtf then I realized I should disable the OIS on the lens (camera should have done it though).
Overall it's nice but nothing earth shattering.
Focus is ok-ish but not fast (see the first attached shot where it missed). Sharpness is good, so is the bokeh. I think it would do better with landscapes which is fine because that's why I got it.
-
I realized I should disable the OIS on the lens (camera should have done it though).
Depends how your options are set for IS on lens vs body in the custom menu. You can give lens IS priority. Maybe it was set as such.
-
Fuji has better IQ than m43 (admittedly, I haven't used the latest 20MP m43 sensor, but the E-M1 is still on the 16mp, which I am quite familiar with). Of course only the X-Pro 2 actually has extra resolution - with the exception of that body, all Fuji bodies and most modern m43 bodies are 16 MP. The X-T1 (16 MP Fuji I have the most experience with - I presently shoot the Pro 2 with a T1 backup body) has quite a bit (more than a stop, maybe 2) of extra dynamic range against 16 MP m43, plus there is extra apparent resolution, which is probably a combination of XTrans and lower noise, even at modest ISO. Once you jump to the X-Pro 2, there is no real contest. Also remember that Fuji gives you 1 additional stop of DOF flexibility for any given maximum aperture (and the m43 lenses are generally not faster to make up for it).
Both offer fairly complete lineups of excellent lenses. m43 has an advantage in that they also have a significant number of cheap lenses - all the Fujinons are quite good, but you'll pay for them... If you want to add a cheaper lens in a focal length you don't use often, there is likely to be an m43 option, while the only possibility for Fuji is a manual focus Samyang/Bower/Rokinon.
The biggest advantage to m43 (other than video, where m43 has a huge lead - the X-Pro 2 is the only Fuji that shoots decent video at all, and it's quite good, but not 4K) is the Olympus "Hand of God" image stabilization - it really is amazing, and it'll stabilize anything from a lensbaby to a $1500 pro lens. The long Fuji telephotos are just as good(I've gotten shots at stupid shutter speeds with the 100-400, sometimes pushing it with the 1.4x on there as well), but the primes aren't stabilized, and the stabilization on the shorter zooms is decent, but nothing like the long stuff.
-
I got to use it for 2 weeks during a recent trip, I'll post some impressions in the next few days when I get a little more time.
-
That said, even at 200 ISO I find the sensor noise way too much
What noise at ISO 200? Sorry but that's just rubish.
-
Something I don't think mentioned so far is format aspect........Aps-C is 'long' at 2:3 and m43 is much nearer to 'square' at about 3:4. So, much depends on whether you need/like particular format shape. When I have been engaged in stage productions the Aps-C 'fits' the longer stage shape (for full stage shots obviously) with minimal cropping from top and bottom edges but m43 is effectively useless in this application. Then again, having 'cut my teeth' on Rollieflex cameras I much prefer a shorter, nearer to square, aspect for much pictorial shots and m43 is much closer to this....Aps-C requires so much cropping from either end that it's quality advantage (over m43) is quickly lost.
...........So, I have come to see Aps-C/M43 considerations as 'horses for courses' and tend to choose along those lines for what I plan to do.
-
I have used an E-M5 ii along with the 12-40 2.8, 35-100 2.8 and Samyang 7.5 2.8 fisheye during a recent trip. I also had a couple of primes when not hiking but they say no use.
I got rained on one of the evening but I used a plastic sleeve so I might have used the Fuji just fine; when not enough time I think you will have an advantage for the weather resistance per system weight.
Image quality is good in decent light. The increased DOF for a certain shutter speed can be nice in landscape. I think the E-M5 stabilization is overrated, at least at some shutter speeds that I've used. Yeah, it's nice for primes but it's not better than a good OIS lens. It might have been some shutter shock?.
The system with the pro zooms can make for nice, sharp and contrasty images when the light doesn't cooperate that much. If you get the exposure right and like contrasty images the quality is good and noise is not that much of an issue as I was afraid.
If however you have to push the shadows ugly things can happen. I have to test with some prints to see if the print shows less than the screen but even at iso 200, push the exposure 0.5 and shadows 50+ and you can have plenty to deal with. Another thing that I don't like with pushing the shadows is that it quickly gains a purple cast, much more than the other systems.
Weight wise it's ok, not a big difference compared to a Fuji if you don't need weather resistance and keep yourself at 2-3 smaller lenses.
I might revise some of this after some prints, although I came up with less keepers than I was hoping.
PS. for some reason the images looked much nicer on a Surface 3 pro, even at 100% zoom, compared to my home monitor.
-
Samyang 7.5 3.5 Fisheye
Initially I got a Rokinon version and it was kind of crap; it wouldn't focus on anything beyond 10-15m, only at F16 objects at distance were somehow in the DOF (very soft though).
I got a Samyang version and things were much better. It's sharp enough and easy to use. Keeping as fisheye works better if you can because when you try to correct it to a rectilinear projection it looks very ugly at the corners and edges. I hear good things about the Panini projection (and seen some great examples) but you have to use Hugin for it.
I used along the 12-40 zoom during a more difficult hike where the 35-100 stayed in the backpack (only time I wanted it was when we got near some mountain goats).
Here are some examples, uncorrected
-
but even at iso 200, push the exposure 0.5 and shadows 50+ and you can have plenty to deal with. Another thing that I don't like with pushing the shadows is that it quickly gains a purple cast, much more than the other systems.
.
I would love to see your raw file that behaves like this. I've pushed my files well past this with great results. I use 2 e-m1s on a daily basis and find them doing better than my canon 5d2. I. Also find my results clean and excellent in print. In fact, prints even at ISO 5000 can be clean when prepared right and shot well in raw. I've never seen a file take a purple case from just a small adjustment. Especially ISO 200.
Just to clarify, I don't doubt or knock your experience, I am just more curious than anything since I've had such an extremely opposite file experience.
-
I would love to see your raw file that behaves like this. I've pushed my files well past this with great results. I use 2 e-m1s on a daily basis and find them doing better than my canon 5d2. I. Also find my results clean and excellent in print. In fact, prints even at ISO 5000 can be clean when prepared right and shot well in raw. I've never seen a file take a purple case from just a small adjustment. Especially ISO 200.
Just to clarify, I don't doubt or knock your experience, I am just more curious than anything since I've had such an extremely opposite file experience.
Maybe I wasn't clear, those statements are meant to be mostly separate. As in pushing the shadows/exposure the noise goes up faster than I would like even at base iso. The other separate statement is about the purple shadows which tend to happen at base iso with hefty processing or at higher iso with moderate processing.
Here is one example (a little extreme maybe): https://www.dropbox.com/s/6p0mx1hd2x76nly/Olympus_test1.ORF?dl=0
-
Maybe I wasn't clear, those statements are meant to be mostly separate. As in pushing the shadows/exposure the noise goes up faster than I would like even at base iso. The other separate statement is about the purple shadows which tend to happen at base iso with hefty processing or at higher iso with moderate processing.
Here is one example (a little extreme maybe): https://www.dropbox.com/s/6p0mx1hd2x76nly/Olympus_test1.ORF?dl=0
I have found, at least with my E-M5 mk1, that there is a bit of a "shoulder" to the color accuracy, so if you push it too far one way or another, it hits that shoulder. The exact image you put in there is definitely far exceeding that boundary, and is personally a shot I would take two or three different exposures of and do a fusion of them.
-
Hi Armand! Thanks for that file. So I loaded it up in the latest lightroom and had a go at the file. Here are the files, what I see, and then my explanation at the bottom.
File 1: As shot. This is what you provided. When looking at it objectively I see an image exposed purely for the sky brights. Moody and dark everywhere else.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/lyka2nxp6650c0o/Olympus_test1-as-shot.jpg?dl=0
File 2: Exposure lifted +4. This is raising the exposure in lightroom 4 stops!
https://www.dropbox.com/s/47vgnwej5ot180l/Olympus_test1-exp-plus-4.jpg?dl=0
File 3: Exposure pushed +5 stops, shadows pushed to 100% brighter, and darks pushed to 100% brighter. That's is just ripping the file to the extreme for demonstration of the "purple."
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9v6aqu0ybulgm14/Olympus_test1-max-exp-shad-dark.jpg?dl=0
File 4: My own adjustments in lightroom to create what I feel is an optimal image based on the data that was recorded...assuming that you are trying to show the entire scene and not just the sky.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/48786t2tbz1ecep/Olympus_test1-optimal.jpg?dl=0
All my adjustments were quick basic lightroom adjustments. My honest opinion is that few images would hold up to this kind of extreme adjustment. My medium format gear can handle a +4 boost just fine...as long as you dont touch the shadows additionally. The Olympus handled the exposure boosting 4 stops just fine too without going ugly purple. Honestly, if I have a file that I meant to capture the entire scene, and it was still that dark after 4 stops... I screwed up. Bottom line. No miracles to expect...I just needed more exposure to be recorded. I would have shot two images. Or three. This is also a perfect scene for a graduated neutral density filter. I understand this is an extreme example, but I also think as photographers in general we need to know what the cameras can and cant do. I dont think any camera out there is capable of pulling more than this cleanly. In fact, for a sensor as small as a m4/3 sensor, this is exceptionally good. In fact I know for a fact my Canon full frames would have fallen apart just as hard. I've done the tests myself.
This all comes down to what do we want. What are we after as photographers, and what are we doing when we hit the shutter? Was this file intentionally shot like this thinking "oh ill open it up later?" Or was it shot for the sky and "oh wouldnt it be great now if I could see more?"
I am certainly not directing this to you Armand. I am glad you posted an example. I think this is a good exercise for everyone to see. It comes down to what we want...and I feel the file I show as optimal in my opinion, based on my own adjustment preferences is more than acceptable based on what I started with. If I go to black and white, I have even more liberty to push it. I bet if you print this, it wouldn't even be that bad up to 14 inches. In fact all non-photographers wouldnt think twice.
Anyways, thanks again. Very cool. I'de love to hear opinions. Again, my processing is my own choice, I am sure others would have done this differently. Not here to knock any one.
-
I'm impressed, looking at the original you wouldn't be able to tell detail is still captured in the shadows.
I personally prefer the original shot, it has character. I've pushed the shadows just enough to show the trees, and the noise level is still very good and controlled. I've applied sharpening and a slight selective noise reduction, as well as color correction. I don't think any modern camera is going to impact anyone's ability to take good photos as much as their skill level.
(http://i845.photobucket.com/albums/ab14/Andrea_Minganti/Olympus_test1_zpsor5fxn6d.jpg)
Thanks Armand for the photo, I like it and it was a fun five minutes edit!
-
I like the moody cool tones in that edit as well. I would have cropped a bit from the bottom probably. I would have assumed this photo was captured in this way intentionally for the sky and the heaviness of tones.
-
Here is another version, almost identical, and how I processed it: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=111310.msg919438#msg919438
I liked the scene but was in a terrible rush (long story, trying to reach the car to get back to the injured part of the party) so I took few shots trying to preserve the highlights and hoping I have enough room in the shadows. First time with the Olympus, didn't know what to expect. In retrospect a couple of different exposures might have worked better.
I still see the purple showing up fast but maybe because I got used to see it. One of these days I'll take out all my 3 systems and shoot a high contrast scene, preserving the highlights, and see exactly how much room I have in each.
-
I still see the purple showing up fast but maybe because I got used to see it. One of these days I'll take out all my 3 systems and shoot a high contrast scene, preserving the highlights, and see exactly how much room I have in each.
Yeah, I had to lower the purple slider and rise the blue in the Hue settings to keep it under control. That is definitely something to keep in mind as you don't have anywhere near the same level of wiggle room you get with a bigger sensor, but overall not too bad. As long as you can edit around the purple (selective desaturation or lack of purple in the scene) I'd say you can manage really well.
The noise was not as pleasant as I expected, but I think you managed it really well in your edit (I just kept everything dark so it doesn't show up much). My ancient D200 and D7000 have a more pleasant pattern, but again nothing you can't really deal with I guess.
How's the 12-40mm 2.8 PRO as far as handling goes? Is it well balanced on the body?
-
I generally concur with Tony, there's only so much any camera can do in a single exposure. A 35mm sensor will have 1-2 stops more latitude to boost shadows without increasing noise. That is not always critical with landscapes, as you often (though not always) have the option to do HDR.
-
How's the 12-40mm 2.8 PRO as far as handling goes? Is it well balanced on the body?
It's ok. A little front heavy maybe but I usually use 2 hands most of the time so you don't really feel it. Zooms the "wrong" way. It doesn't save any weight compared to my Fuji X-T1 with the kit zoom but you gain some wr and it's wider. For landscape the increased DOF it's desirable. Focuses quite close, you don't really need a macro for flower close-ups, etc.
All in all a good hiking kit.
I feel the ergonomics are superior on the Fuji, even taking into account the fact that I still didn't know the camera. As an example there was a cat drinking from a spring, funny shot (I'll post it when I get to the computer) but my camera was set at iso 200 giving exposures around 1/25, mostly too slow. I only had few seconds to change it. Just too cumbersome to do it so fast (go to the super menu, find the iso and turn to auto then switch to shutter priority), I took few extra shots instead so I have a couple that are usable. On the Fuji I could have turned 2 dials in 1 sec and be done with (iso to A and shutter speed to where I wanted it, around 1/125). With more practice it might take me less. Or I guess I could learn to use custom settings ...
The significant weight savings are on the telephoto side, the Pana 35-100 2.8 is really light, and the Samyang 8mm fisheye is quite light (though not bright).
-
I used the Samyang 8mm for APS-C, and yeah it's a lot smaller and lighter than what it looks in pictures online. I gave it to a friend who uses it a lot more than I did.
Is the Fuji system as fast and responsive as the Olympus one? I never tried a Fuji, had them in my hands but the guys at the shop never let me turn one on!
-
Maybe I wasn't clear, those statements are meant to be mostly separate. As in pushing the shadows/exposure the noise goes up faster than I would like even at base iso. The other separate statement is about the purple shadows which tend to happen at base iso with hefty processing or at higher iso with moderate processing.
Armand, Your avatar tells me everything I need to know ...
-
I used the Samyang 8mm for APS-C, and yeah it's a lot smaller and lighter than what it looks in pictures online. I gave it to a friend who uses it a lot more than I did.
Is the Fuji system as fast and responsive as the Olympus one? I never tried a Fuji, had them in my hands but the guys at the shop never let me turn one on!
It's fast enough in daily use that I don't see a difference, the X-T1 at least. The menus are simpler also.
Focus speed is lens dependent, I somehow feel it's slightly slower now after the last firmware update. With a fast lens in decent light is practically as fast as the E-M5. The slower lenses are ok if you don't shoot moving subjects.
-
It's fast enough in daily use that I don't see a difference, the X-T1 at least. The menus are simpler also.
Focus speed is lens dependent, I somehow feel it's slightly slower now after the last firmware update. With a fast lens in decent light is practically as fast as the E-M5. The slower lenses are ok if you don't shoot moving subjects.
Thanks. Today I've been to my usual shop and got to play around a bit.
I tried the Samyang 7.5mm fisheye on a OM-D E-M5 and it's crazy sharp at all apertures! You can correct the distortion to get a very wide rectilinear lens (see attached example, shot at ISO800 mind you), though I would still recommend the Olympus 7-14mm PRO if you have enough money. It's also very tiny and extremely light, very well balanced even on a OM-D E-M10 mk.II without grip.
Next week they should get new Fuji bodies, though not the X-T2 (yet). I'll bug them to try something, they usually don't let me turn on bodies that are not for demo. :(
-
I expect the X-T2 to have good focusing. How good we'll have to see, I've been partially disappointed by Fuji's marketing on the focus before. Either way, it should be significantly better than what we have now.
Early reports are promising but they almost always are.
-
Another version with more foreground and the exposure as good as it gets for a single exposure.
Also the well behaved cat that I mentioned earlier in the thread.
-
Beautiful stuff!
-
All week I have been shooting for a client (can't publish the work just yet...) a mix of architectural / landscape images. I would have thought this was a dream job except for the unfortunate fact that 80% of the work needed to be shot between 11am and 2pm due to restrictions imposed by the client. Not what I consider ideal in any sense of the word. Especially in terms of making mundane subjects look amazing. Regardless, it is what it is. At least they signed off on what kind of look they would be getting and understand that.
Anyways, I am not going to deliver anything that looks like a noon snapshot to anybody. I've been shooting with the E-M1 exclusively. I found as long as I I picked my based exposure really well for the scene's extremes, and watched the histogram, I could effectively get away with a single shot. In fact, boosting shadows 100%, blacks by 20 or so, and controlling highlights and exposure as needed in areas, I was actually coming away with a beautiful "daylight" images. In fact, these are all going to publishing next month.
I found that if I watched the histogram and got into the clipping "2 clicks" I was for sure safe. That means non highlight warning, and then keep adjusting exposure speed until the orange appears. First click it appears, second click it increases. 2nd or 3rd click into clipping was generally manageable in scenes with wide harsh contrast. Not scenes like the image we played with above, but your every day sunlit afternoon scene. Of course I had a few tricks up my sleeve too to ensure colors looked good, etc... However, I just want to say my results have been coming out surprisingly good and the dark areas perfectly clean.
-
I found that if I watched the histogram and got into the clipping "2 clicks" I was for sure safe. That means non highlight warning, and then keep adjusting exposure speed until the orange appears. First click it appears, second click it increases. 2nd or 3rd click into clipping was generally manageable in scenes with wide harsh contrast. Not scenes like the image we played with above, but your every day sunlit afternoon scene. Of course I had a few tricks up my sleeve too to ensure colors looked good, etc... However, I just want to say my results have been coming out surprisingly good and the dark areas perfectly clean.
That mirrors the same basic method I use for the E-M5. Hasn't failed me yet. Knowing the limit of the sensor is critical.
-
I feel the ergonomics are superior on the Fuji, even taking into account the fact that I still didn't know the camera. As an example there was a cat drinking from a spring, funny shot (I'll post it when I get to the computer) but my camera was set at iso 200 giving exposures around 1/25, mostly too slow. I only had few seconds to change it. Just too cumbersome to do it so fast (go to the super menu, find the iso and turn to auto then switch to shutter priority) .... Or I guess I could learn to use custom settings ...
It's worth noting on the E-M5 II and E-M1 (and the PEN 5, for that matter) the 2x2 switch (located by the rear dial on the E-M5 II) will flick the dials to the secondary mode which defaults to putting ISO and White Balance onto the two dials.
-
It's worth noting on the E-M5 II and E-M1 (and the PEN 5, for that matter) the 2x2 switch (located by the rear dial on the E-M5 II) will flick the dials to the secondary mode which defaults to putting ISO and White Balance onto the two dials.
I think I had set it up but in the heat of the moment it didn't even cross my mind to do that. This is a case when too many options are not always a good thing.
-
For whatever it's worth I'm going to Zion for day hikes and I'll get the Fuji this time, one reason being the 10-24 (I didn't get the 7-14 on the m43 side) and the second is that when I can afford a little extra weight I prefer the Fuji output, easier to get an appealing image in camera.
-
I would love to see your raw file that behaves like this. I've pushed my files well past this with great results. I use 2 e-m1s on a daily basis and find them doing better than my canon 5d2. I. Also find my results clean and excellent in print. In fact, prints even at ISO 5000 can be clean when prepared right and shot well in raw. I've never seen a file take a purple case from just a small adjustment. Especially ISO 200.
Just to clarify, I don't doubt or knock your experience, I am just more curious than anything since I've had such an extremely opposite file experience.
Here's an m4/3 Panny GH4 image from RAW at ISO 5000, holding good detail with judicious NR in ACR, which made a nice 15x20 print. Sure, put the nose in it and there's some fine-grained noise, but I dare say much better than ASA 400 Tri-X 16x20's from my Nikon-F 50 yrs ago!
Pete
-
In fact, prints even at ISO 5000 can be clean when prepared right and shot well in raw.
I use my cameras at any ISO up to and including the maximum they'll shoot at but I suppose a lot depends on your own quality threshold. I took this shot under a pier on a dull overcast day, GX7, ISO 25,600, 1/30, f8. I could have used a wider aperture and brought the ISO down but I wanted large depth of field.
(http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn313/alans70/P1010359-b_zpsh75g2xvs.jpg) (http://s307.photobucket.com/user/alans70/media/P1010359-b_zpsh75g2xvs.jpg.html)
(http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn313/alans70/P1010359-c_zpsyrwtanwd.jpg) (http://s307.photobucket.com/user/alans70/media/P1010359-c_zpsyrwtanwd.jpg.html)
This wont win any prizes but I just wanted a shot of the beams and to me this is acceptable quality and beyond anything I got from 35mm film.
-
M43 sure is compact and darn good!
-
I think I had set it up but in the heat of the moment it didn't even cross my mind to do that. This is a case when too many options are not always a good thing.
Oh, sure. I've had the E-M1 almost a year, and I'm still fine-tuning settings and finding new ways to make it more usable. Olympus have wonderful configurability but mediocre discoverability. Once you've gotten used to it they're (IMO) suprememly useable.
-
I recently took my X-T1 and 18-55 to the DRC for a few weeks. Humidity around 90% every day, very hot, and the Fuji stood the test. My D800 would've begun falling apart I'm sure. I didn't feel I needed any other lens, however, the 16-55 might have been better. It's understandable to try and make sure you're covered for everything but honestly once you're out there you're too busy shooting to worry about whether or not you brought the right lens(es).
-
I have the 45 f/1.8, great lens all around... 17 f/1.7 much faster to focus then the 20 f1.7, but I like the 40 Field of view of the 20mm better for street. With the 20, I zone manual focus, with f/8 for DOF. I use these three lenses all the time. I much prefer primes over zooms.
Peter
I second that although a bit off topic. Don't write off Oly's range of "premium" primes. They are fast and incredibly sharp, small and light but not weatherproof. I find the 12-40 f2.8 Pro a bit bulky on the E-M1 so unless I'm going to be shooting in the rain, I prefer the premium primes.
-
I think micro 4/3 has found it's place in more recent times partly down to the bodies being priced at more realistic levels. I felt for a long time that Oly were pricing too high, so that might help adoption a bit.
Oly have always had a good reputation for lenses and the primes are no exception little to fault with most of them.