Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: fike on October 31, 2013, 10:23:39 am
-
This is the first time I have bought a new camera body without any expectation for substantive improved image quality. In some ways, this is me maturing as a photographer and in other ways it is the market maturing. I bought it exclusively for ergonomic improvements, and it hasn't disappointed me.
Here are some disjointed thoughts about this camera:
- It's bigger than my E-M5, but not in a way that has much real-world impact on carrying it. I am realizing that the real important size attribute with compact system cameras is the size of the lenses, so I am still happy with the compactness
- The focus points are much smaller. This was a real problem for me on the E-M5.
- Wow, the configurability of the buttons is excellent. I never need to dive into a menu to do anything common. Bracketing, ISO, EV, focus zoom, whatever.
- Focus peaking is more amazing than I imagined.
- Hand grip is too short for my hand. My ring finger falls off the bottom. I think my RRS plate will fix the problem. This wasn't a problem with the E-M5.
- It isn't as handsome as the E-M5 was. that won't stop me from loving it, but it is something I notice.
- They fixed the bug that prevents you from using the EVF view mode that moved the shot data off the image area into a blue bar at the bottom.
- Manual zoomed focus with the EVF works better
- Lack of ACR RAW support is irritating. I wonder when Adobe will get full support. Olympus's RAW software is poor.
- I still don't use the automatic eye-sensor for switching from LCD to EVF. I leave it in EVF mode and only rarely change it to LCD.
- Remote control with WiFi and my iPhone works really well. I prefer this to an RF remote.
- Bracketing is fixed. You can easily fire-off two, three, or five shot bracketed sets. On the E-M5 you had to shoot them individually with multiple button presses.
- Embedded intervalometer is nice. There is no excuse for any DSLR not to have one built-in.
- MFT lens focus is faster than the E-M5
-
Fike,
thanks for the comments, and I look forward to more. Two in particular stand out to me:
- Wow, the configurability of the buttons is excellent. I never need to dive into a menu to do anything common. Bracketing, ISO, EV, focus zoom, whatever.
- Manual zoomed focus with the EVF works better
The first is nice: Olympus has been criticized for its comprehensive but deep menus, so it is great if one can configure the camera to avoid most menu-diving.
On the second, can you say more about how the MF is improved? I am still waiting for "picture-in-picture" focusing zoom, that still shows the unmagnified image around the edges of the composition.
-
Hey Marc,
A few questions if you don't mind.
Battery. Does it use the same as the em-5?
Track focus. Will it track focus with mft lenses and keep in focus? does the viewfinder black out in high fps?
Menu. You said you didn't have to dive in, but I've found the em-5 is a mess (to put it politely). Do you have to go into the menu to set wysiwyg?
Right Angle Grip. Do you have it, and/or is it out and do you know when?
ISO. How high can you go without the painterly edges? Have you tried past 1000?
_____________
A tip. Download Iridient Developer. It's not the easiest interface but the absolute best processing on the planet, just smokes lightroom for final output.
You have to go Camera adv: tab and press edit. You can build your own film by working on the properties of the three rgb channels.
Very good software and they update very quickly.
Thanks
BC
This is the first time I have bought a new camera body without any expectation for substantive improved image quality. In some ways, this is me maturing as a photographer and in other ways it is the market maturing. I bought it exclusively for ergonomic improvements, and it hasn't disappointed me.
Here are some disjointed thoughts about this camera:
- It's bigger than my E-M5, but not in a way that has much real-world impact on carrying it. I am realizing that the real important size attribute with compact system cameras is the size of the lenses, so I am still happy with the compactness
- The focus points are much smaller. This was a real problem for me on the E-M5.
- Wow, the configurability of the buttons is excellent. I never need to dive into a menu to do anything common. Bracketing, ISO, EV, focus zoom, whatever.
- Focus peaking is more amazing than I imagined.
- Hand grip is too short for my hand. My ring finger falls off the bottom. I think my RRS plate will fix the problem. This wasn't a problem with the E-M5.
- It isn't as handsome as the E-M5 was. that won't stop me from loving it, but it is something I notice.
- They fixed the bug that prevents you from using the EVF view mode that moved the shot data off the image area into a blue bar at the bottom.
- Manual zoomed focus with the EVF works better
- Lack of ACR RAW support is irritating. I wonder when Adobe will get full support. Olympus's RAW software is poor.
- I still don't use the automatic eye-sensor for switching from LCD to EVF. I leave it in EVF mode and only rarely change it to LCD.
- Remote control with WiFi and my iPhone works really well. I prefer this to an RF remote.
- Bracketing is fixed. You can easily fire-off two, three, or five shot bracketed sets. On the E-M5 you had to shoot them individually with multiple button presses.
- Embedded intervalometer is nice. There is no excuse for any DSLR not to have one built-in.
- MFT lens focus is faster than the E-M5
-
Fike,
thanks for the comments, and I look forward to more. Two in particular stand out to me:
The first is nice: Olympus has been criticized for its comprehensive but deep menus, so it is great if one can configure the camera to avoid most menu-diving.
On the second, can you say more about how the MF is improved? I am still waiting for "picture-in-picture" focusing zoom, that still shows the unmagnified image around the edges of the composition.
It doesn't have picture in picture zoom feature...at least that I have noticed.
-
Hey Marc,
A few questions if you don't mind.
Battery. Does it use the same as the em-5?
Yes
Track focus. Will it track focus with mft lenses and keep in focus? does the viewfinder black out in high fps?
It does track focus, but I haven't exercised this much yet. At high-speed, it does black out. At medium-speed (I think 6fps) it shows an image between shots and refocuses between shots.
Menu. You said you didn't have to dive in, but I've found the em-5 is a mess (to put it politely). Do you have to go into the menu to set wysiwyg?
I am not sure what you mean by set "what-you-see-is-what-you-get" in this context.
Right Angle Grip. Do you have it, and/or is it out and do you know when?
Don't have it. I don't know.
ISO. How high can you go without the painterly edges? Have you tried past 1000?
I haven't worked extensively yet, but I could go to 1600 with the E-M5 without getting too painterly an image effect. There was some "grain" at that ISO, but not a distracting amount. I expect this one to be similar.
_____________
A tip. Download Iridient Developer. It's not the easiest interface but the absolute best processing on the planet, just smokes lightroom for final output.
You have to go Camera adv: tab and press edit. You can build your own film by working on the properties of the three rgb channels.
Very good software and they update very quickly.
I'll have to check that out. Thanks for the tip.
-
I am still waiting for "picture-in-picture" focusing zoom, that still shows the unmagnified image around the edges of the composition.
The Panasonic GX7 does this...great for getting the framing & focus right simultaneously with manual focus lenses.
Digression: I got the GX7 intending to use it as a (jacket) pocket camera with Panasonic's 20mm lens, but once I tried some smaller SLR lenses with it via a Metabones SpeedBooster that intention went out the window. Now I have it matched with an 18/35/85mm Y/C Zeiss set (approx. 26/50/120mm, with the SpeedBooster, in 35mm-format terms), set up for b&w with simulated yellow or red filters. Photos look great right outta the camera. The 35 & 85 lenses are the small & light f/2.8 versions (f/2 with the SpeedBooster), and all three lenses balance & handle very nicely with the camera. Video quality is decent enough too, better than with the Olympus cameras anyway. The Blackmagic PCC is sulking in a corner somewhere, feeling usurped.
-Dave-
-
Do you have to go into the menu to set wysiwyg?
Yes, it is not assignable to any button as I can see. My solution, not the best but sort of works: Two exactly the same Mysets good for 90% of the way I generally use the camera, except for the Wysiwyg change. Assigned one to IAuto and the other to Art on the mode dial. Problem, if I change anything like ISO, white balance, burst rate, etc I loose the changes on the Myset change and must reset them. This rarely happens in practice, except for ISO, so it does not bother me much. I can live with it. But would like to be able to assign it to a button.
Track focus. Will it track focus with mft lenses and keep in focus?
I have only tried tracking with the 4/3 50-200 lens. Since I have no experience with other than mft cameras in the digital realm, I can't really compare it to anything. But I did not like it. Shooting dirt track cars did not work well for me. In 4/3 phase mode, the area of active focus is somewhat limited to the central viewfinder area, so I kept loosing the cars focus. With mft lenses it might well be a different story as the focus area is almost the full viewfinder but I have not tried it.
After three weeks shooting the cars on Sundays, I found what works last Sunday. Very sharp results, in focus. Just use single AFP and aim it at the damn car if you can see it through the dust. It got focus fast enough in this case. Again, with 4/3 lens, phase focus. What did not work was my usual prefocus technique. I usually focus on a spot on the track where I know there will be action and hit it when the cars reach that point. The camera would not focus on the track as there was low contrast and no vertical lines. You need vertical lines for the phase focusing as the sensors are not cross type, only laid out on a horizonal line.
Right Angle Grip. Do you have it, and/or is it out and do you know when?
If you mean the battery grip, it is out and I have it. Nice. Very useful for the larger lenses like the 50-200, not required so much for average lenses. Of course it does double the battery life if that is what you need.
I also got the RRS L-bracket for use without the battery grip. Disappointed as you cannot easily use the remote camera release with it attached. Of course this is a tripod accessory and as such one wants to use the remote. The GH3 got this right as the remote socket is on the right and free and clear.
I don't do much high ISO so can't comment.
Generally, I like the camera but wish Oly would set up their focus system like the GH3. Got the Pana GX7 at the same time and really love that camera.
Larry
-
Thanks guys.
Dave you seem to have more fun than me.
I think the em5 is good, wish it had the intuitive controls of the pana gh3, wish the gh3 shot stills as well as my em-5.
For people new to evfs, the pana gh3 just makes me forget it's electronic, except it isn't as detailed as the olympus, but the camera is so easy to work.
The Olympus at least my em5 is a very good camera, but It's a camera you have to get used to especially all it's little quirks. The more I get used to it, the more I like it.
The em5 doesn't really track focus well, though has the fastest single focus I've seen. In fact I can continuous focus sort of just by refocusing as you shoot.
The only suggestion I'd make with olympus is stop being so weird. Great looking camera, great images, great lenses that are fast and sharp, but it has so many strange little things going on it's like they planned it to be difficult, but once your use to them it's fine.
Anyway, thanks for the information.
BTW: Dave do you find the GX7 still quality better than the gh3?
Thanks
BC
-
Right Angle Grip.
battery grip :
(http://imageshack.us/a/img200/6490/fxjm.jpg)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img209/6788/he37.jpg)
RRS base plate (w/o L attachment)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img59/4903/t5pq.jpg)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img200/5109/femc.jpg)
-
Does anybody that has the em-5 know or believe that the em-1 produces a better file?
With all it's quirks everytime I use the em-5 I smile, it's built so beautifully and just feels right, but I'd like 20% better image quality and better track focusing.
So what's the real verdict?
BC
-
Does anybody that has the em-5 know or believe that the em-1 produces a better file?
With all it's quirks everytime I use the em-5 I smile, it's built so beautifully and just feels right, but I'd like 20% better image quality and better track focusing.
So what's the real verdict?
BC
Not noticeably different. Some IQ improvement might be had with the in-body lens corrections that are being done on Olympus MFT lenses as well as removal of chromatic abberations (which is a nice bonus). I haven't experimented enough to say much first hand, but DXO showed an increase in their DXOmark from 71 to 73 on the E-M1. That is hardly noticeable. I have seen some samples that suggest less banding in shadows when pushing shadows very hard. It will take a while for me to confirm that sort of thing.
-
...
I have only tried tracking with the 4/3 50-200 lens. Since I have no experience with other than mft cameras in the digital realm, I can't really compare it to anything. But I did not like it. Shooting dirt track cars did not work well for me. In 4/3 phase mode, the area of active focus is somewhat limited to the central viewfinder area, so I kept loosing the cars focus. With mft lenses it might well be a different story as the focus area is almost the full viewfinder but I have not tried it.
After three weeks shooting the cars on Sundays, I found what works last Sunday. Very sharp results, in focus. Just use single AFP and aim it at the damn car if you can see it through the dust. It got focus fast enough in this case. Again, with 4/3 lens, phase focus. What did not work was my usual prefocus technique. I usually focus on a spot on the track where I know there will be action and hit it when the cars reach that point. The camera would not focus on the track as there was low contrast and no vertical lines. You need vertical lines for the phase focusing as the sensors are not cross type, only laid out on a horizonal line.
...
Larry
I've considered renting that lens to see how it works as a light-weight and stopgap measure for shooting wildlife. My expectations have been low. First, 200mm (even on MFT with 2x crop) isn't long enough for birds and critters. Second, I was concerned that the focus wouldn't be fast enough. Sounds like you are verifying that. I also considered adding a four thirds 1.4x teleconverter to it. That would probably make focus worse and TWO adapters in the image path seems a bit crazy.
On the other hand, I shoot wildlife with a Canon 7D and a 100-400 lens that I generally restrict to the center focus point for anything moving. I just don't find automatic tracking works so I track with my hand and eye.
I tried my 75-300 II the other evening and the results remain disappointing. I need to go out in some good light to really determine whether this lens can be sharp enough for me. I haven't gotten anything sharp out of that lens beyond 200mm or maybe 250mm. The lens is also really slow on the telephoto end. (and please, don't anyone tell me that sharpness is overrated. For wildlife, sharpness is what I want.)
MFT needs a fixed-focal length MFT 300mm f/4. Canon has a really good 300mm f/4 that remains compact (400 f/5.6 too), so I know with the smaller image circle of MFT that they can do it, but Olympus and Panasonic just haven't made it a priority yet.
-
I've considered renting that lens to see how it works as a light-weight and stopgap measure for shooting wildlife. My expectations have been low. First, 200mm (even on MFT with 2x crop) isn't long enough for birds and critters. Second, I was concerned that the focus wouldn't be fast enough. Sounds like you are verifying that. I also considered adding a four thirds 1.4x teleconverter to it. That would probably make focus worse and TWO adapters in the image path seems a bit crazy.
On the other hand, I shoot wildlife with a Canon 7D and a 100-400 lens that I generally restrict to the center focus point for anything moving. I just don't find automatic tracking works so I track with my hand and eye.
I tried my 75-300 II the other evening and the results remain disappointing. I need to go out in some good light to really determine whether this lens can be sharp enough for me. I haven't gotten anything sharp out of that lens beyond 200mm or maybe 250mm. The lens is also really slow on the telephoto end. (and please, don't anyone tell me that sharpness is overrated. For wildlife, sharpness is what I want.)
MFT needs a fixed-focal length MFT 300mm f/4. Canon has a really good 300mm f/4 that remains compact (400 f/5.6 too), so I know with the smaller image circle of MFT that they can do it, but Olympus and Panasonic just haven't made it a priority yet.
Sigma made (so you can find used) the following for 43 :
Sigma APO 50–500mm F4–6.3 EX DG HSM
Sigma APO 70-200mm F2.8 II EX DG Macro HSM (consider w/ 1.4x converter ?)
Sigma APO 135–400mm F4.5–5.6 DG
Sigma APO 300–800mm F5.6 EX DG HSM
-
I've considered renting that lens to see how it works as a light-weight and stopgap measure for shooting wildlife. My expectations have been low. First, 200mm (even on MFT with 2x crop) isn't long enough for birds and critters. Second, I was concerned that the focus wouldn't be fast enough. Sounds like you are verifying that. I also considered adding a four thirds 1.4x teleconverter to it. That would probably make focus worse and TWO adapters in the image path seems a bit crazy.
Just to note: the Four-Thirds to m43 adapter is just a tube with electrical contacts. No optics. The 50-200mm + 1.4x TC works very well optically on the E-M1. I have to say I'm seriously impressed with this lens. Focusing is okay speed-wise...not as fast as with m43 lenses in lower-light conditions. But it is repeatably accurate given the constraints of non-cross-type PD-AF points. I haven't tried tracking with this setup. For birds & critters I do understand the need for a speedy 300mm...
-Dave-
-
Just to note: the Four-Thirds to m43 adapter is just a tube with electrical contacts. No optics. The 50-200mm + 1.4x TC works very well optically on the E-M1. I have to say I'm seriously impressed with this lens. Focusing is okay speed-wise...not as fast as with m43 lenses in lower-light conditions. But it is repeatably accurate given the constraints of non-cross-type PD-AF points. I haven't tried tracking with this setup. For birds & critters I do understand the need for a speedy 300mm...
-Dave-
Oh Wow! You have the E-M1 with the 50-200 and 1.4x teleconverter? I would love to see some image samples if you have them. I can rent a 50-200, but I am not sure I can rent the converter.
-
Dave you seem to have more fun than me.
Hah, I'm just easily amused. ;) That along with the Surgeon General's recommended daily allotment of the beverage referenced in the attached photo. (Pic taken with the E-M1 & Oly 50-200mm lens while testing off-center PD-AF focus points under relatively dim tungsten light.)
BTW: Dave do you find the GX7 still quality better than the gh3?
I don't have the GH3 so can't comment on that one. Compared with the E-M5/E-M1 the GX7 is very similar. I think Panasonic does less aggressive NR at higher ISOs than Olympus, even in the RAW data. I prefer the lighter touch myself. But the files from all three cameras look great to me.
-Dave-
-
Oh Wow! You have the E-M1 with the 50-200 and 1.4x teleconverter? I would love to see some image samples if you have them. I can rent a 50-200, but I am not sure I can rent the converter.
I plan to spend some time at my favorite local park with the E-M1 & 50-200mm this weekend, weather permitting. I'll take along the TC too. This will hopefully yield some decent sample pics. Right now all I've got are photos of tequlia bottles, guitar effects pedals, book covers and Mulder & Scully action figures. :D
-Dave-
-
Don't get me wrong. I love this lens (except for the size!).
The attached photo seems plenty sharp to me. The focus problems were primarily due to user inexperience the first couple of weeks. After familiarity, I am much more comfortable with it. It is plenty fast in good light with a subject that has some contrast. The focus point in this photo was probably a little to the right and a little below center, so that I can get the nose of the car. The focus was fast enough so that I just mashed the shutter when the car was in frame. Of course the lens was already focused in that general area so that it did not have to hunt much. 200mm, 5.6, 1/640, ISO 200. That being said, the contrast focusing seems faster.
I have the 1.4TC but have not used it yet, no need. From what I have read, Olympus optimized the TC for a subset of their HG lenses, this being one. By all reports the sharpness loss is minimal, at least for the 1.4. Of course the proof is in the tasting.
Larry
-
The weather was crap this weekend except for a brief period late Sunday, so I didn't go on my planned nature walk. But I took some photos anyway. Given LuLa's constraints on file size & number of pics per post, here are some pics taken with the Oly E-M1 and Four-Thirds 50–200mm lens, most of 'em also with the Oly 1.4x tele-converter attached.
The first pic is of the camera & lens themselves.
The second pic was taken in my backyard Sunday late afternoon, a fast-reaction grab of a plane passing overhead. 283mm (this is what the camera reports as the longest focal length with the TC attached), f/4.9 (wide open), 1/1000th sec, ISO 200. Cropped to 3:2 aspect ratio.
The third pic was taken Saturday just after sunset from in front of my house. 200mm, f/3.5, 1/320th sec., ISO 1250. Uncropped.
The fourth pic is a full-res crop of the third pic's (off center) point-of-focus.
More pics in the following two posts.
-Dave-
-
The first pic is from Saturday eve, a closeup of an old Dodge in a neighbor's driveway. 200mm, f/3.5, 1/320th sec., ISO 16000. Uncropped.
The second pic is a full-res crop of the first pic's point-of-focus.
The third pic is from Sunday late afternoon, a view from my backyard (lotsa churches in my neighborhood). 283mm (lens + TC), f/4.9, 1/400th sec., ISO 250. Uncropped.
The fourth pic is a full-res crop of the third pic's point-of-focus, in this case a streetsign located half-a-mile away. You can see a bit of atmospheric distortion in this one.
I should note that all of these photos were taken handheld. In most cases I took three shots in quick succession, per my usual D-SLR technique, and then chose the "best" one. This mostly proved to be unnecessary...focus was accurate and consistent shot-to-shot.
-Dave-
-
The first pic is of hardware attached to a utility pole in my backyard. Uncropped. 283mm, f/4.9, 1/400th sec., ISO 250.
The second pic is a full-res crop of the first pic's point-of-focus.
The third pic is of a utility service vehicle parked across the street from my house. Uncropped. Exact same stats as in the first pic except ISO 200.
The fourth pic is a full-res crop of the third pic's point-of-focus.
-Dave-
-
To note: I have my E-M1 set up to provide fairly flat JPEGs out-of-camera...minimum sharpness & contrast settings along with a mild reverse S-curve, "Natural" color profile and neutral saturation. So for these posted images I tweaked the histograms, punched up the contrast a bit and added a touch of USM. These days I only process the RAWs when I intend to print 'em.
-Dave-
-
To note: I have my E-M1 set up to provide fairly flat JPEGs out-of-camera...minimum sharpness & contrast settings along with a mild reverse S-curve, "Natural" color profile and neutral saturation. So for these posted images I tweaked the histograms, punched up the contrast a bit and added a touch of USM. These days I only process the RAWs when I intend to print 'em.
-Dave-
Nice comparisons. I've thought about buying the om1 but have decided to wait, as panasonic is coming out with a 4k gh something and I bought into the 43 system for the video, the stills were just a bonus.
What I have found interesting is how pretty the fuji cameras files look. They really do look different and the only issue I have is I think the xe2 will be surpassed by a xpro something and I don't really want to buy into another lens system.
Anyway, thanks for posting.
BC
-
Dave,
firstly, thanks for the examples, though I am waiting for some with greater focusing challenges, because I already know how nice the 50-200 is when I can get it in focus on my E-M5.
Secondly:
To note: I have my E-M1 set up to provide fairly flat JPEGs out-of-camera...minimum sharpness & contrast settings along with a mild reverse S-curve, "Natural" color profile and neutral saturation. So for these posted images I tweaked the histograms, punched up the contrast a bit and added a touch of USM. These days I only process the RAWs when I intend to print 'em.
Advice that many forum participants should heed! Raw processing clearly has its place, but I also practice "JPEG+raw", and find that appropriate camera settings [on Olympus cameras anyway] give completely satisfactory in-camera JPEGs for a great majority of images that are destined for on-screen display, with the main exceptions being scenes of unusually high subject brightness range or with other unusual lighting challenges.
-
Fuji jpegs are incredible as well. This is very good advice.
Dave,
Raw processing clearly has its place, but I also practice "JPEG+raw", and find that appropriate camera settings [on Olympus cameras anyway] give completely satisfactory in-camera JPEGs for a great majority of images that are destined for on-screen display, with the main exceptions being scenes of unusually high subject brightness range or with other unusual lighting challenges.
-
Does anybody that has the em-5 know or believe that the em-1 produces a better file?
With all it's quirks everytime I use the em-5 I smile, it's built so beautifully and just feels right, but I'd like 20% better image quality and better track focusing.
So what's the real verdict?
BC
I don't know for sure but:
1) I looked at the images from the EM-1 to those of the EM-5 posted on DPR:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m1/14
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m1/16
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m1/17
On the second and third references (second is daylight, third is low light), I looked at numerous "shots". I couldn't discern any practical difference. What I typically look for is how things like hair and feathers are rendered. Images of numbers aren't typically what I shoot. ;)
I played around with RAW images at various ISO settings.
2) On FM, there was comment awhile back stating that the EM-5 was a bit better, but I couldn't see it.
From my point of view it seems that the image quality between the two is a wash. If I had the "5" I'd keep it. Since I have neither, my choice (neglecting price) would the "1" for it's other features (such as a better grip).
Glenn
-
From my point of view it seems that the image quality between the two [E-M1 & E-M5] is a wash. If I had the "5" I'd keep it. Since I have neither, my choice (neglecting price) would the "1" for its other features (such as a better grip).
I'd say that's right. The E-M5 has a helluva time autofocusing Four-Thirds lenses. The E-M1 handles 'em, at least the 50–200mm in my experience, quite well. Other things like the higher-res EVF and rear LCD are nice too but not game changers. If I hadn't been planning to turn the E-M5 into an infrared camera I would've passed on the E-M1. The 50–200 is a really impressive lens, though, and I'm glad the E-M1 lets me use it properly. One of the best longer zooms, maybe the best, I've ever had my hands on.
-Dave-
-
Thanks for putting those samples up, Dave. They look good, but I am going to need to see it for myself. The only way I can judge sharpness and contrast that suits my needs is with feathers or fur. I decided this week that the 75-300 just isn't good enough for me. At 200mm, it is pretty good, but not excellent. At 300mm it is mediocre.
I rented the 50-200 with the adapter and bought a 1.4x converter to test the combo this weekend. It is in competition with my Canon 7D with my 100-400 that is a very decent compromise of size and quality. This Olympus combo will have a slightly shorter focal length and be a bit lighter.
-
Since I upgraded from the E-M5 to the E-M1, let me provide a few more observations about my reasoning for the upgrade.
- The E-M5 is a fabulous street photography camera, but it isn't very snappy. The E-M1 has a much faster feel.
- The focus on the E-M1 is better because it has smaller focus points and faster operation. This was a big annoyance for me on the E-M5
- viewfinder doesn't overlay shot data on top of image area when manually using the EVF switch
- bracketing is much easier, more flexible, and better integrated
- Most operations can be done with buttons that never require you to lift your eye from viewfinder
Yes, there is nothing here about image quality. There is no noticeable difference. I am hoping to find that in-body lens correction is good, but I haven't used it extensively enough to decide that yet.
There are a few things I didn't expect to like but have liked a great deal:
- remote shooting with a smartphone is very well integrated. It will make a very nice system for surreptitious shooting (don't judge me). I found it worked really well with my dog who has grown afraid of the camera in front of my face.
- focus peaking is really cool. I didn't imagine it would be so useful
- With a RRS dovetail plate, the grip is perfect
- HDR works well
- Focusing is much faster. I know I already said that above, but it REALLY is much faster
This is a camera to get if you care about snap-shooting or ergonomics or are serious about photojournalism work. If you are a travel photographer or shooting family, the upgrade is probably lost on you.
-
Since I upgraded from the E-M5 to the E-M1, let me provide a few more observations about my reasoning for the upgrade.
...
Yes, there is nothing here about image quality. ...
There are a few things I didn't expect to like but have liked a great deal:
- ...
- Focusing is much faster. I know I already said that above, but it REALLY is much faster
So there _is_ something about image quality: getting a moving subject in focus is a vastly greater improvement in IQ than any pixel-peeping in search of sensor tech differences! I wish I could justify upgrading from my E-M5 so soon, but will bide my time.
-
This is the first time I have bought a new camera body without any expectation for substantive improved image quality. In some ways, this is me maturing as a photographer and in other ways it is the market maturing. I bought it exclusively for ergonomic improvements, and it hasn't disappointed me.
Here are some disjointed thoughts about this camera:
.....
- Bracketing is fixed. You can easily fire-off two, three, or five shot bracketed sets. On the E-M5 you had to shoot them individually with multiple button presses.
......
I shot in bracket mode all the time on my EM5 and have no problem shooting 5 in a row with 1 button press.
-
Okay, I finally got out with my rental 50-200, and I agree that with the 1.4x teleconverter it is SHARP!!! Focus speed with this combination is somewhat poor. The ability to zoom focus is fantastic because you can focus on critters behind branches and twigs. Here are some image samples to illustrate my points.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/trailpixie/10783667694/in/photolist-hqUvh6-hqUvrV-hqUvPt-hqUEvs-hqV6Ms-hqUETw-hqUEZo-hqUFgq-hqVPfg-hqV7Ej-hqV7H5/
(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2822/10783667694_84657a879c_c.jpg)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/trailpixie/10783664584/in/photolist-hqUvh6-hqUvrV-hqUvPt-hqUEvs-hqV6Ms-hqUETw-hqUEZo-hqUFgq-hqVPfg-hqV7Ej-hqV7H5/
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3709/10783664584_767815a7a4_c.jpg)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/trailpixie/10783550325/in/photolist-hqUvh6-hqUvrV-hqUvPt-hqUEvs-hqV6Ms-hqUETw-hqUEZo-hqUFgq-hqVPfg-hqV7Ej-hqV7H5/
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3695/10783550325_6d6dfe4e19_c.jpg)
The rest of the test set can be found here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/trailpixie/tags/50200/
-
I see Michael has restated his (high) regard for Olympus' upper-end Four-Thirds lens lineup.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/one_upon_a_time.shtml
My artist friend Bruce bought a 50–200mm after trying out mine on his E-M1. We both think it's the finest long zoom in the 4x range we've ever used. At least it's certainly very well matched to this camera and its sensor.
-Dave-
-
As I stated before, S-AF works fine...
One of my first images with the EC20. I've had both sharper and not as sharp images with the adapter. This image was difficult because I was on a slope and I couldn't hold the tripod as still as I wanted. Don't remember if I had IS on or off. Not sure if the latest rev of ACR would have done anything different to the image, this was v5.2.
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3703/10451729515_cf1a55e007_b.jpg)
-
Thanks for putting those samples up, Dave. They look good, but I am going to need to see it for myself. The only way I can judge sharpness and contrast that suits my needs is with feathers or fur. I decided this week that the 75-300 just isn't good enough for me. At 200mm, it is pretty good, but not excellent. At 300mm it is mediocre.
I rented the 50-200 with the adapter and bought a 1.4x converter to test the combo this weekend. It is in competition with my Canon 7D with my 100-400 that is a very decent compromise of size and quality. This Olympus combo will have a slightly shorter focal length and be a bit lighter.
Fike,
Thanks for sharing your results. How did you think the EM-1 compared to the 7D + 100-400?
Marc
-
That's a wonderful owl photo.
My Scorecard comparison with my 7D and the 100-400 goes something like this:
Auto Focus:
E-M1 with 50-200 + 1.4x--poor
7D with 100-400--Good
Image Quality
E-M1 with 50-200 +1.4x--Very Good
7D with 100-400--Very Good, maybe a tiny bit better than the 50-200
Weight and handling
E-M1 with 50-200 + 1.4x--Easily hand holdable, not tiring to carry
7D with 100-400--hand holdable, tiring to carry all day
Manual Focus
E-M1 with 50-200 + 1.4x--Excellent because of zoom to focus
7D with 100-400--Difficult
Color and Contrast
E-M1 with 50-200 + 1.4x--Very Good
7D with 100-400--Very Good
Tracking
E-M1 with 50-200 + 1.4x--Poor
7D with 100-400--okay
The 50-200 would benefit by the inclusion (in software if possible) of a focus limiter. One of the big problems with auto focus is that when it hunts, it has to go all the way back to the closest focus and then all the way back out and this is slow. I probably won't get many BIFs (birds in flight) but I can easily do perching or stationary critters.
-
That's a wonderful owl photo.
My Scorecard comparison with my 7D and the 100-400 goes something like this:
Auto Focus:
E-M1 with 50-200 + 1.4x--poor
7D with 100-400--Good
Image Quality
E-M1 with 50-200 +1.4x--Very Good
7D with 100-400--Very Good, maybe a tiny bit better than the 50-200
Weight and handling
E-M1 with 50-200 + 1.4x--Easily hand holdable, not tiring to carry
7D with 100-400--hand holdable, tiring to carry all day
Manual Focus
E-M1 with 50-200 + 1.4x--Excellent because of zoom to focus
7D with 100-400--Difficult
Color and Contrast
E-M1 with 50-200 + 1.4x--Very Good
7D with 100-400--Very Good
Tracking
E-M1 with 50-200 + 1.4x--Poor
7D with 100-400--okay
The 50-200 would benefit by the inclusion (in software if possible) of a focus limiter. One of the big problems with auto focus is that when it hunts, it has to go all the way back to the closest focus and then all the way back out and this is slow. I probably won't get many BIFs (birds in flight) but I can easily do perching or stationary critters.
Thanks. The reports out there on how good the EM-1 is on continous AF are varied. The best I've heard is that it's on par with the D200, which if true would put it about 1-2 generations behind the 7D. Thom Hogan also provisonally rates it better than most other mirrorless options but below the Nikon 1 series. Perhaps not surprising, I'm told Oly SLRs were never terribly good at C-AF and in any case it'll take a lot to match Canikon's expertise in that area.
All that being said, I'm expecting the EM-1's C-Af to be leaps and bounds better than the EM-5 (not that that's saying much) and usuable for basic tracking. But from what I've seen on thr net, those looking for great BIF capabilities have been disappointed (though IMO they were expecting too much).
-
Thanks. The reports out there on how good the EM-1 is on continous AF are varied. The best I've heard is that it's on par with the D200, which if true would put it about 1-2 generations behind the 7D. Thom Hogan also provisonally rates it better than most other mirrorless options but below the Nikon 1 series. Perhaps not surprising, I'm told Oly SLRs were never terribly good at C-AF and in any case it'll take a lot to match Canikon's expertise in that area.
All that being said, I'm expecting the EM-1's C-Af to be leaps and bounds better than the EM-5 (not that that's saying much) and usuable for basic tracking. But from what I've seen on thr net, those looking for great BIF capabilities have been disappointed (though IMO they were expecting too much).
Have an em-5, two gh3's, Canon 1dx, Nikon D3 and obviously on tracking nothing focuses like the 1dx, next the D3, next the gh3. The gh3 actually is quite good, unless your shooting fuel dragsters or 100meter track, but the gh3 does well, even in video.
Regardless I use the 1dx mostly for stills, the Gh3's mostly for video, the em5, mostly because I just like it and would buy an em-1 in a heartbeat if it would track focus, especially with the legacy 43 lenses, as I love the 150 f2.
In fact I don't think they should make any 43 lens slower than f2 but that's just me.
I do know on slow tracking with the em-5 it focuses so fast on single af, that I can touch and release, touch and release and hit it most of the time.
I really think Olympus should have produced an optical finder version for the pro line of 43 lenses, but I guess the market just wasn't there. It's a shame because those older lenses are very nice.
To note; at first I found the em-5 to be a somewhat non intuitive camera to work, but lately have used it a lot, worked around it's quirks and think it's a great little camera.
Also in regards t focus one thing I've noticed on the gh3 and the em5, on single autofocus they will lock on in virtual darkness, or darker than I will ever shoot.
If you can find anything with contrast on the image, in very low light they really lock on.
With the new Sony A series, micro 43 has a challenge. Now they can't just compete on size and cost and they can't just compete on 3rd party lenses, because the A series will take a lot of lenses. Though it shouldn't matter, the em1 compared to the Sony A looks purposeful and well designed and the A looks a little lego block simple.
M43 needs the same focus ability as a dslr, especially olympus as they are pretty much a still centric camera with limited video.
That said, I think the quality from these m43 cameras is very good. A little better than my leica m8 in detail and noise probably 1 stop down from the Canon 1dx, though if done right you can get more than a stop from the lenses with the same depth of field, so it would be a wash, if all the lenses were faster and the focus was equal to optical view finder cameras.
IMO
BC
-
My first thoughts: I'm a Canon 1Dii and 5Diii shooter, and I think they're great, although the 1Dii is very long in the tooth. I got the EM1 for my wife, who has arthritis and no longer can handle heavier or large cameras. Lenses are the 12-40 2.8, the 14-150 for a walkaround lens, and the 75-300 for long reach.
I tried the camera and lenses out for her and was quite pleased. Prints up to 13x19 are quite good up to ISO 1600, and with some judicious NR from LR5.2, ISO 3200 cleans up beautifully. (I shoot RAW.)
In fact, ISO 6400 can print well at the same size but needs very careful NR tweaking in LR.
The 12-40 appears to be as good over all as the 16-35 f/2.8 on my Canon 5Diii. The 14-150 is a fun lens and surprisingly good through its range, but the big surprise was the 75-300, which was much sharper than I had expected, through about 250mm. And at 300mm, it was not significantly softer than my 100-400 on the 5Diii.
At C-AF and 6.5 fps, I was able to pan with subjects ranging from people and pets walking, to boats in the river, to autos on the city streets. In-focus rate was 80-90% and surprised me. Using the C-AF + Tracking on moving cars and boats was less accurate, but in-focus was about 60-70%. My wife is not a sports shooter, but does a lot of shooting of dancers at Native American pow-wows, and the camera seems as if it will handle that situation quite adequately.
I think Oly outdid themselves on this generation of OMD.