Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: armand on February 25, 2018, 04:34:26 pm
-
1. Did you notice the 20MP sensor to be significantly better than the 16MP?
2. Are there still issues with the Pana lenses on a Oly body? There was some purple in some shots among others.
I'll be in Europe in April and I will likely encounter rain, at least in England and I don't want to worry about it that much so I'm tempted to take the m43 system with at least the 12-100. I already have the E-M5ii but wonder if the E-M1ii will provide some extra benefits (besides 2 SD cards and better handling).
Also on the extra wide I only have the Rokinon 7.5mm fisheye and I should get something more versatile. The Pana 8-18 F2.8-4 looks the most appealing, the Oly 7-14 F2.8 is a little too heavy and large with a bulbous front element, more difficult to protect from the rain.
-
1. No. The 20mp sensor (in my GX8) is "better" in that it resolves a smidge more detail than the GX7's 16mp chip with no apparent noise or DR penalty. But no big deal overall.
2. I never had any issues using Pany lenses on Oly bodies, aside from a known banding thing with the 20mm on the E-M5 and E-M1. Can't tell you about newer stuff, though, as I no longer have any Oly cameras.
-Dave-
-
I use Olympus bodies with the Panasonic 12-35 2.8 with no problems.
-
I’m curious to know experiences if we flip Armand’s second question. Are there any issues using Panasonic bodies with Olympus lenses? I’m considering the new Oly 12-100 for use on my GX8. Thanks.
-
I use the 12/2 & 75/1.8 Olympus lenses on my GX8 without issues. I know some recent lenses that support dual lens/body stabilization don't do so, though, if you "mismatch" brands.
-Dave-
-
I’m curious to know experiences if we flip Armand’s second question. Are there any issues using Panasonic bodies with Olympus lenses? I’m considering the new Oly 12-100 for use on my GX8. Thanks.
A valid question.
For me the reason to stay with Olympus is to use the Dual-IS but that's about it and this is only with the 12-100 F4. The 12-100 however is the ideal backpacking lens for a landscape photographer. Unfortunately beside it and Oly 12-40 F2.8 all the other Oly WR lenses went into a weight gain regimen and are less suited. Yes, they remain lighter than a full frame but I think Panasonic with their F2.8-4 lens range gets it. They are WR, very close performance wise to the Oly PRO and significantly lighter while you lose a stop at the long end which is an acceptable compromise in my book. The 8-18, 12-60 and the rumored 50-200 have a huge range for a small weight. I can foresee a backpacking kit with these 3 lenses. My problem on Pana is that the G9 is a little too big; I can put up with the increase to E-M1ii size from my E-M5ii size but the G9 is pushing it. I've handled for a brief period a Pana GX85 (I think) with the Oly 12-40 and wasn't that impressed by the ergonomics. Focus was faster through.
-
i don't know if it makes any difference to you in this situation, but don't forget that Panasonic applies, on many of their lenses, significant lens optical corrections in software on camera and on import into Lightroom (if you use it) via the lens profile.
Olympus does some as well, but they appear to focus more on optical correction, particularly in the "pro" series.
-
I think both are equally bad.
Oly 12-40 has "only" 8.5% barrel distortion at 12mm, Oly 12-100 has 6.9% and Pana 12-60 has 6.2%. Overall pretty disappointing.
-
I think both are equally bad.
Oly 12-40 has "only" 8.5% barrel distortion at 12mm, Oly 12-100 has 6.9% and Pana 12-60 has 6.2%. Overall pretty disappointing.
But the distortion is allowed by intent, with the assumption it'll be corrected via software. It simplifies the optical designs, reducing costs and (likely) bulk.
-Dave-
-
But the distortion is allowed by intent, with the assumption it'll be corrected via software. It simplifies the optical designs, reducing costs and (likely) bulk.
-Dave-
Yes, most of the mirrorless lenses are designed this way and it's a fact of life albeit it remains disappointing.
This does make you wonder if DSLR lenses would cut few more corners will the size difference become significantly smaller?
-
But the distortion is allowed by intent, with the assumption it'll be corrected via software. It simplifies the optical designs, reducing costs and (likely) bulk.
-Dave-
If you researched the system prior to investing in micro four thirds you would be aware of the design. I personally waited over two years before finally deciding if to move from the original four thirds system to micro four thirds. In the early days Panasonic criticised Adobe when they claimed to support one of their early model cameras without applying the lens correction contained in the raw file header. Adobe subsequently started to apply the lens correction. Jpeg images produced without the lens correction applied are sub-standard.
-
Yes, most of the mirrorless lenses are designed this way and it's a fact of life albeit it remains disappointing.
This does make you wonder if DSLR lenses would cut few more corners will the size difference become significantly smaller?
Maybe some of the wider D-SLR lenses could become smaller. It's not about cutting corners so much as just incorporating software adjustment into the designs. The tech is there…why not embrace it? If you design to allow your barreling or pincushioning to be smooth & even, for one thing you get rid of funky moustache distortion.
-Dave-
-
Maybe some of the wider D-SLR lenses could become smaller. It's not about cutting corners so much as just incorporating software adjustment into the designs. The tech is there…why not embrace it? If you design to allow your barreling or pincushioning to be smooth & even, for one thing you get rid of funky moustache distortion.
-Dave-
I'm guessing this would lead to even less sharp corners? Not to mention the extreme vignetting that some of these lenses have. At base ISO no big deal but as the ISO goes up so does the noise in the corners when the vignetting is corrected.
-
I'm guessing this would lead to even less sharp corners? Not to mention the extreme vignetting that some of these lenses have. At base ISO no big deal but as the ISO goes up so does the noise in the corners when the vignetting is corrected.
The profiles are there to correct all the issues you are referring to, technology designed to offer improved performance.
-
That I know. My point was that correction of those flaws is lossy.
Eg. You have 3EV vignetting. You shoot at ISO 800. Fully correcting the vignetting leads to the ISO in the corners to be 6400.
-
1. Did you notice the 20MP sensor to be significantly better than the 16MP?
Nope.
2. Are there still issues with the Pana lenses on a Oly body? There was some purple in some shots among others.
That only happens with two very early lenses (P7-14 and maybe one other lens).
I'll be in Europe in April and I will likely encounter rain, at least in England and I don't want to worry about it that much so I'm tempted to take the m43 system with at least the 12-100....
The 12-100 is an outstanding lens, the IS is ridiculously great. However, I found it to be a bit heavy. If I used that lens, it would be the only lens I'd bring (except perhaps a prime as backup).
One possible lineup:
8-18
25mm f/1.8 prime
40-150 f/4-5.6
Or, you could just go for the classic...
12mm
25mm
45mm
-
That I know. My point was that correction of those flaws is lossy.
Eg. You have 3EV vignetting. You shoot at ISO 800. Fully correcting the vignetting leads to the ISO in the corners to be 6400.
The only loss is with vignetting -- and that often happens with optically corrected lenses anyway.
Maybe I missed it, but I don't know any M43 lens that loses 3EV (before corrections). The 12-100 is pretty bad, but even that is 1.8EV when at 12mm; the other focal lengths are 0.5EV or less. That's comparable to the vignetting issues of the new Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 ED VR.
Independent lens testers will check sharpness with the corrections applied, and the better-quality M43 lenses show excellent sharpness corner-to-corner at apertures f/8 and wider.
Even high-end Zeiss lenses for Sony FE now incorporates software corrections. As long as the final results meet your criteria, I don't see any reason to worry about it.
-
Nope.
That only happens with two very early lenses (P7-14 and maybe one other lens).
The 12-100 is an outstanding lens, the IS is ridiculously great. However, I found it to be a bit heavy. If I used that lens, it would be the only lens I'd bring (except perhaps a prime as backup).
One possible lineup:
8-18
25mm f/1.8 prime
40-150 f/4-5.6
Or, you could just go for the classic...
12mm
25mm
45mm
I only have the 17 F1.8 and 45 F1.8 Considering how light they are I will likely bring both.
Wider however I only have the manual focus Rokinon 7.5 mm F 3.5. I could use it or get the 8-18 or shot 2-3 shots pano at 12mm.
-
I only have the 17 F1.8 and 45 F1.8 Considering how light they are I will likely bring both.
Wider however I only have the manual focus Rokinon 7.5 mm F 3.5. I could use it or get the 8-18 or shot 2-3 shots pano at 12mm.
Can you rent any of these lenses, either before or for the trip?
-
Can you rent any of these lenses, either before or for the trip?
Sorry I wasn't clear enough, from the primes I only have to 7.5, 17 and 45. On the zoom side I have the Oly 12-40 F2.8, Oly 12-100 F4 and Pana 35-100 F2.8
Renting something wider might be an option.
-
The additional resolving power of a 20mp sensor has been documented on DXO’s website. Additionally, high resolution mode/pixel shift does work to enhance resolution even with micro-4/3 zooms.
The Olympus 12-100 f/4 is a great lens and has significant resolving power. The dual IS with Olympus bodies is a game changer, almost negating the need for a tripod. The same can be said for the dual IS with Panasonic products. It’s too bad we can’t mix and match the dual IS functionality between manufacturers...
A trip is a great reason (rationalization) for a new photo purchase. If you have an Olympus body, go with the 12-100. As far as a body goes, I’d recommend waiting one more generation as both Panasonic and Olympus are likely to have bodies that encompass high resolution mode, hand held. This is already true with Pentax’s recently announced K-1 Mk II.
-
The additional resolving power of a 20mp sensor has been documented on DXO’s website. Additionally, high resolution mode/pixel shift does work to enhance resolution even with micro-4/3 zooms.
The Olympus 12-100 f/4 is a great lens and has significant resolving power. The dual IS with Olympus bodies is a game changer, almost negating the need for a tripod. The same can be said for the dual IS with Panasonic products. It’s too bad we can’t mix and match the dual IS functionality between manufacturers...
A trip is a great reason (rationalization) for a new photo purchase. If you have an Olympus body, go with the 12-100. As far as a body goes, I’d recommend waiting one more generation as both Panasonic and Olympus are likely to have bodies that encompass high resolution mode, hand held. This is already true with Pentax’s recently announced K-1 Mk II.
I've already used the E-M5ii with the 12-100 while hiking and it's a good combo. I miss a little more spark in many shots but it's good enough.
Waiting for a new body is always a good answer however I think it will be around 2 years before getting another one on the Olympus side unless they implement it in the future E-M5iii before the next E-M1iii.
-
Few more questions and a rant.
I'll start with the latter. The Oly menus are just too complex, it's difficult to find something quickly. But you have the super panel (or whatever it's called) some might say. True, it helps but doesn't solve the problem. And guess what, try to hit that center ok button with gloves that are anything but a liner. I have maybe a 25% success rate at best, really frustrating.
So, is E-M1 any easier to use with gloves? I would venture to say that no but I'd like to hear from somebody who tried both.
Does the bigger grip reduce the space for the fingers? I bough a L-plate with a grip and also the Oly grip for the E-M5ii. With a thicker lens, such as the 12-40/2.8 and 12-100/4, there is very little space for the fingers, and I don't have thick fingers.
Other thoughts.
The live view with real time highlight overexposure AND shadow underexposure is brilliant, I wish Fuji would have it. You can play with the exposure compensation and maximize the dynamic range of the sensor or figure it out if one exposure will cut it. There are issues though. The highlight overexposure is very conservative. I had a shot where I chose to have few blown highlights while the camera was showing I have minimal if any shadow problems. In LR though there was much more room for highlights, like 2/3 of a stop, while the shadows were way too noisy when there were lightened.
The high resolution mode is nice but too flawed. Can't deal with even minute movement.
-
If you find the menus too complicated then that is the truth for you, and one can not argue with it.
For me, I did the menus complexity appropriate to the configurability of the camera. That is, if you choose to ignore some menu items, the camera will still work just fine. Only it will be configured the way some engineers decided it should be. Once I work through the setup, I rarely need to go to the menus.
I use the SCP regularly. It is a bit difficult to grab that center button with gloves on, so I often just take the glove off. Then I take my glasses off to get a better view thru the EVF. So it's not seemless. But I love the SCP; it's effectively a very sophisticated "my menu". Between be SCP, the three Custom settings, the 2x2 lever and the customizable buttons, I find it very easy to quickly control the camera.
I also find the ergonomics of the grip and button placement very good. I have the RRS plate on the camera, which adds just enough height for my pinky finger.
-
The high resolution mode is nice but too flawed. Can't deal with even minute movement.
Armand,
So if the subject doesn't move, like say a painting, this could be a high resolution camera tech for photographing paintings?
Peter
-
I think so, the color accuracy is supposed to be superior also. I guess you will need a sharp lens with a very flat field.
Now sometimes is almost there if you don't enlarge and the jpeg deals a little better with the artifacts (being smaller in size helps too).
Here is one that is almost artifact free of a subject you would not expect to be that still. It's from the jpeg version and a 100% crop from the center.
PS. I wasn't expecting to take high resolution shots of the deer, it was just set that way when I encountered them.
-
Armand,
Re: Thoughts and rants
I have the EM5-ii, like you. I enjoy the functionality of this camera; others might rant about its complexity; but they are two sides of the same coin. I agree the buttons are small but so is the body.
The issue of exposure while holding the highlights and shadows is very important. I often shoot a single image exposed to the right, adjusting the exposure so that the highlight warning occupies just a small portion of the image. When i want to be sure, I invoke the HDR feature and develop in lightroom. This provides a very natural rendering. I hear that you are frustrated with the exposure and DR, but there are many tools on the camera to cope. Don't forget the live histogram. It is referred to the jpeg exposure but experience will show you how to compensate for raw exposure where there is more headroom.
Finally, the High Res mode can often be used successfully to overcome the motion artifacts. Simply read the first frame of the High Res exposure into photoshop. Upres to match the High Res shot. Then create a layer for the up ressed image and the high res shot. Use a black mask and paint out the motion artifacts. This works well so long as the motion artifacts are confined to smaller items in the background.
IMHO the EM5 ii is really a great camera. It is basically water proof and using its features allows one to overcome almost any problem in the field.
-
Armand,
Re: Thoughts and rants
I have the EM5-ii, like you. I enjoy the functionality of this camera; others might rant about its complexity; but they are two sides of the same coin. I agree the buttons are small but so is the body.
The issue of exposure while holding the highlights and shadows is very important. I often shoot a single image exposed to the right, adjusting the exposure so that the highlight warning occupies just a small portion of the image. When i want to be sure, I invoke the HDR feature and develop in lightroom. This provides a very natural rendering. I hear that you are frustrated with the exposure and DR, but there are many tools on the camera to cope. Don't forget the live histogram. It is referred to the jpeg exposure but experience will show you how to compensate for raw exposure where there is more headroom.
Finally, the High Res mode can often be used successfully to overcome the motion artifacts. Simply read the first frame of the High Res exposure into photoshop. Upres to match the High Res shot. Then create a layer for the up ressed image and the high res shot. Use a black mask and paint out the motion artifacts. This works well so long as the motion artifacts are confined to smaller items in the background.
IMHO the EM5 ii is really a great camera. It is basically water proof and using its features allows one to overcome almost any problem in the field.
The Photoshop masking sounds appealing, I'm gonna give a shot.
-
Going on rafting trip soon so I'm debating again if the E-M1 ii is worth it. In my research I reread Thom Hogan's review and it says that in practice the handling is superior to the X-T2, particularly with light gloves. While I only briefly held the Oly once, I did use the X-T2 enough be be confused by that statement. With light gloves I find the handling to be unexpectedly good, quite comparable to the Nikon D750 that I also have.
How much better is really the E-M1, or this is just Thom's bias?
-
I find the e-m1 mk2 fairly usable with a decent glove. Especially once everything is set the way you want it. Then just about any option you need is in the super control panel and that comes from the ok button and the d-pad. That is probably the easiest to work with gloves. I’ve never used the XT-2 with gloves when I rented one.
I have shot in heavy cold with with the Olympus. Liners and thick heavy gloves. I was able to shoot fine. I rarely need to actually adjust anything in the menus or in the super control panel while actually shooting though.
The em1 ergonomics and buttons are a world apart from the em5 in my use of them. And the em5 is that much better than the pen f. I strangely just couldn’t manage the pen f handling at all.
-
I eventually took the E-M5ii with the 12-100 F4, mostly for WR and convenience, desert like environment, didn't want to change lenses. I probably would have been fine with the X-T2 also, the limiting was the lens if I didn't want to change. That's why I'm excited about the announced 16-80 F4 WR because I definitely prefer the Fuji files and ergonomics.
My comment was mostly referring to the handling of x-T2 with gloves. I have no doubts the E-M1ii is better than E-M5ii but I've used the X-T2 with gloves (thin) and did unexpectedly well, similar to the Nikon D750 that I also have. That's why I'm not too taken with Thom's comments.
One major point, make sure you test key points of the camera if you are not totally sure. I thought the E-M5ii can be charged via USB; I was wrong and had to do with 1 2/3 batteries. I had more batteries but left them at home and took an external battery instead. It forced me to take less shots but was a major inconvenience for the night shots where I couldn't experiment. And I was already limited by the m43 and F4, and not so great manual focus at night.