New Camera from Olympus

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

What?

16 Bit Myth

[RFPhotography]

Yeah, OK.  Thought I might get away with it.

[jjj]

If I wasn't addressing his point it's because his point wasn't clear.  As I said, it's not even clear whether he's talking about a multiple 1D cameras or a 1Ds or multiple 1Ds cameras.  If he's talking about jjj's point then I still say bullshit.  If James or Cooter or Russell or whomever wants to type in express himself in intelligible English, then maybe his points can be addressed more precisely.  The simple point is, manual focusing is not that difficult with a DSLR.

it's much harder than with an ancient film camera in my experience, which is what James said. Just tested it to confirm it and a modern Canon is not as good as a 40 year old Olympus design. Which is a pain because my old manual Olympus lenses are lovely and sharp, but sadly a bit tricky to use on my Canon.
Not sure why you struggle to understand James's posts either, I certainly knew what James meant when he was talking about his 1Ds cameras.

[Telecaster]

I don't think I'm having any trouble getting what BC is saying. For all the techie jiggery-pokery of the past dozen years, images are still images. I look at transparencies I shot a couple weeks ago with my little Aria SLR and 35 & 50mm lenses, then I look at stuff from a couple days ago with the E-M5, then I look at last evening's thunderstorm shots with the Pentax 645D, then I look at Kodachromes my dad took on a 1950s fishing trip in the Canadian wilderness. They're all basically the same thing. I look at Super 8 footage (now on DVD) of me & my mom from 1963, Hi-8 video I shot in Singapore in the 1990s and then GH3 video of me playing guitar last week. Again all basically the same thing.

I've re-processed Canon 10D RAW files taken in 2003/4 and often have been surprised by how much better the tonality is with the latest software. Less spatial resolution than current cameras, sure, but IMO that's not such a big deal. Noisier than current cameras at high ISOs too...for the most part also not a big deal. With re-processing the files look like photos now rather than Handycam stills. They're of a piece with the EM-5 and 645D files, even of a piece with the Provia I'm using now and the Kodachrome my dad used.

I've included two photos, one taken in 1984 on Kodachrome 64 and the other last month with the E-M5. Both are nothing special...just record shots of my on-going fascination with the Moon. Both basically the same thing.

-Dave-

[RFPhotography]

it's much harder than with an ancient film camera in my experience, which is what James said. Just tested it to confirm it and a modern Canon is not as good as a 40 year old Olympus design. Which is a pain because my old manual Olympus lenses are lovely and sharp, but sadly a bit tricky to use on my Canon.
Not sure why you struggle to understand James's posts either, I certainly knew what James meant when he was talking about his 1Ds cameras.

Well, if that's what he was saying then that's what I thought too and I addressed it.  I don't know what Slobodan is going on about.  The only film camera I have now is a Fuji MF rangefinder with a split viewfinder.  Finding the split zone is difficult.  You have to hold the camera just so.  It's far easier and quicker with both of my digital Nikons.  None of my Canon film SLRs had great viewfinders.  I have used a couple old Nikon rangefinders that were decent.  But the only cameras I found pretty easy to focus were my Crown Graphic 4x5, my C220, C330 and my RZ.

As far as understanding what James was saying, I guess you understand forumease  better than me.  Then again, I don't understand textease either.

[jjj]

Well, if that's what he was saying then that's what I thought too and I addressed it.  I don't know what Slobodan is going on about.  The only film camera I have now is a Fuji MF rangefinder with a split viewfinder.  Finding the split zone is difficult.  You have to hold the camera just so.  It's far easier and quicker with both of my digital Nikons.  None of my Canon film SLRs had great viewfinders.  I have used a couple old Nikon rangefinders that were decent.  But the only cameras I found pretty easy to focus were my Crown Graphic 4x5, my C220, C330 and my RZ.

Comparing a rangefinder to a reflex camera was not the comparison being made.
Not a fan of them myself, as I sometimes forget to focus.
As for Slobodan, he was just pointing out that you misread/miscontrued James' posts.

As far as understanding what James was saying, I guess you understand forumease  better than me.  Then again, I don't understand textease either.

It's txtspeak actually.  
And not sure why you think James' writing is 'forumease', he has his own style which is distinct from others on here. We're hardly likely to mistake his posts for ones by say Isaac, Schewe, Roy or Rob C, who are all quite different from each other.

[RFPhotography]

As for Slobodan, he was just pointing out that you misread/miscontrued James' posts.

No, I don't think I did.  What I did was disagree.  That's my experience.  Just as your 'tested just now' is your experience.  Which is why it's difficult to make such a definitive statement.

It's txtspeak actually.  

Either way it's still gibberish.


And not sure why you think James' writing is 'forumease', he has his own style which is distinct from others on here. We're hardly likely to mistake his posts for ones by say Isaac, Schewe, Roy or Rob C, who are all quite different from each other.

[/quote]

No, likely not.  But I'm able to comprehend their comments just fine.  But hey, I thought his name was Cooter or Russell or something that starts with a B, so....

Dave, if that's what James was saying then I don't disagree.  I don't think that's what he was saying.  I already made an analogy with cars. 

[BJL]

Hey, does anyone have any comments on the new OMD EM1 camera from Olympus? I thought this thread would be about it, but apparently not.

I have just looked at and read about the camera controls, particularly those operable with the fingers of the right hand, and my conclusion is that the extra space at top-right provided by the deeper grip greatly expands the range of controls that fall quickly under the fingers (one more dial, several more buttons), which to me is another ergonomic advantage, at least for us "control freak" photographers.

This is particularly so when combined with the information available in the EVF, which makes it even more useful  to be able to adjust controls "by touch", with camera to eye. The greater amount of "heads-up" information compared to an OVF also makes the secondary top-panel screen of higher-end SLRs unnecessary, allowing for more controls in less space.

[eronald]

Hey, does anyone have any comments on the new OMD EM1 camera from Olympus?

Nice replacement for the 5. Too much money ($2000 in Europe)

Edmund

[jjj]

No, I don't think I did.  What I did was disagree.  That's my experience.  Just as your 'tested just now' is your experience.  Which is why it's difficult to make such a definitive statement.
Either way it's still gibberish.

Only in your opinion, where you compared apples and oranges.

But hey, I thought his name was Cooter or Russell or something that starts with a B, so....

if you look at bcooter's website, RusselRutherford, it clearly states that it shows the work of James Russell and Anne Rutherford. Ann being the producer/stylist.
And if you've been on forum for a while which the number of your posts indicate, bcooter originally used his own name.

Dave, if that's what James was saying then I don't disagree.  I don't think that's what he was saying.  I already made an analogy with cars. 

Which missed the point. The more correct car analogy would be driving to visit some relatives, who when they open the door to let you in are simply pleased to see you and don't care whether you got there in a '57 or '13 model vehicle.
Clients don't hire cameras, they employ photographers.

[bcooter]

Hey, does anyone have any comments on the new OMD EM1 camera from Olympus? I thought this thread would be about it, but apparently not.

I think it's exactly what most people expected.  Less unique in looks, more standard and I guess more acceptable.

It's seems to be a better camera than the 5, if only for the ability to track focus and probably will have a better viewfinder.

The only thing not mentioned is the insane menu system.  On the gh3 if you make a setting, don't like it return to the menu it takes you back to where you were.  On the omd 5 it takes you from start and with 86 layers of settings is maddening.

The next thing with the 5 is set on manual the two dials.  you can change direction, or function but they both change direction and it's non intuitive. In other words if you set it for apaeture to brighten the scene by moving one dial to the left, if you move the shutter dial to the left it gets darker.  I never, ever will get the hang of that and honestly there might be a fix, but finding it in the menu is difficult.

In other words the two dials should be in sync so one way for both dials goes brighter, the other way darker.

Another point is though most functions are user definable which is fine if you remember what f5, f2 etc. stands for.   On the gh3 there are three buttons by the shutter you use all the time, wb, iso and +-, for compensation.  These are very intuitive and marked as the function they do.  

I can keep comparing a omd 5 and a gh3 (which probably doesn't pertain to the omd 1 (at least not in all functions), but to me looking at the omd 1 as Edmund says in Europe $2,000 for a omd1 is high considering a gh3 is $500 less and does much, much, much better video.

I think it comes down to what you are going to use the camera for.  For stills and video the gh3 is amazing, For focus either track or touch, stills and video the gh3 is so good.

But for stills only the OMD might be a little better, I know the build quality will be more refined, but not as special as the omd5.

Once again, not to beat a dead horse, but the hobbling of the video is surprising.  It's like Panasonic says we'll do the video Olympus you do the stills.

IMO

BC

[RFPhotography]

Only in your opinion, where you compared apples and oranges.

We'll agree to disagree.

if you look at bcooter's website, RusselRutherford, it clearly states that it shows the work of James Russell and Anne Rutherford. Ann being the producer/stylist.
And if you've been on forum for a while which the number of your posts indicate, bcooter originally used his own name.

I don't look at every website in a sig line.  And no, I was not aware that James originally used his own name so a false assumption on your part. 

Which missed the point. The more correct car analogy would be driving to visit some relatives, who when they open the door to let you in are simply pleased to see you and don't care whether you got there in a '57 or '13 model vehicle.
Clients don't hire cameras, they employ photographers.

Again, we'll agree to disagree because we were addressing different points.  I was addressing the point that technology has advanced and the advances in technology have made for much improved image quality.  I agreed that, to paraphrase another commenter, a picture is a picture in that they are all photographs.  That said, if I were to show up to a client's site with an old film camera and tell the client that it'll be, potentially, a few weeks before they get to see anything because I need to get the film processed then scan it which is a tedious and time-consuming process, then do the editing I think the client would likely send me packing and hire someone else.  Clients hire photographers, yes.  But in today's 'give it to me yesterday' mindset, they also hire fast turnaround.  The better analogy would be to say that a customer buying a print may not care what camera it was taken with.  They may care about the printing method, that is a different issue altogether; however.

[jjj]

The next thing with the 5 is set on manual the two dials.  you can change direction, or function but they both change direction and it's non intuitive. In other words if you set it for apaeture to brighten the scene by moving one dial to the left, if you move the shutter dial to the left it gets darker.  I never, ever will get the hang of that and honestly there might be a fix, but finding it in the menu is difficult.

In other words the two dials should be in sync so one way for both dials goes brighter, the other way darker.

I think in another OM thread when you mentioned this niggle, I think someone mentioned there was a way to alter that in the menus.

[jjj]

We'll agree to disagree.

I don't look at every website in a sig line.  And no, I was not aware that James originally used his own name so a false assumption on your part. 


Again, we'll agree to disagree because we were addressing different points.  I was addressing the point that technology has advanced and the advances in technology have made for much improved image quality.  I agreed that, to paraphrase another commenter, a picture is a picture in that they are all photographs.  That said, if I were to show up to a client's site with an old film camera and tell the client that it'll be, potentially, a few weeks before they get to see anything because I need to get the film processed then scan it which is a tedious and time-consuming process, then do the editing I think the client would likely send me packing and hire someone else.  Clients hire photographers, yes.  But in today's 'give it to me yesterday' mindset, they also hire fast turnaround.  The better analogy would be to say that a customer buying a print may not care what camera it was taken with.  They may care about the printing method, that is a different issue altogether; however.

Here's a suggestion, try talking about the same thing as the rest of us instead of misreading posts, making various erroneous assumptions and irrelevant analogies. As then a more sensible conversation could be had.
Here's a clue for you, no-one suggested using film instead of digital for pro work. Another one - digital cameras have been good enough for many years now, the main difference being they are a heck of a lot cheaper to get the same high end quality. What hasn't changed is how manufacturers deliberately hobble cameras.

[Telecaster]

I have just looked at and read about the camera controls, particularly those operable with the fingers of the right hand, and my conclusion is that the extra space at top-right provided by the deeper grip greatly expands the range of controls that fall quickly under the fingers (one more dial, several more buttons), which to me is another ergonomic advantage, at least for us "control freak" photographers.

This is particularly so when combined with the information available in the EVF, which makes it even more useful  to be able to adjust controls "by touch", with camera to eye. The greater amount of "heads-up" information compared to an OVF also makes the secondary top-panel screen of higher-end SLRs unnecessary, allowing for more controls in less space.

Yep, it was the control placement--coupled with the fact that better leaked promo pics showed the camera wasn't a balsawood mockup--that changed my take on the E-M1 from meh to yeah. The function button up top next to the shutter release is key for me, as it is on the E-M5...I use it to switch on/off the EVF mag for manual focusing. Index finger on the func., middle on the shutter. Took a day or two to adjust, now feels so natural that I find myself using my middle finger on other cameras too. Better than using it at them, I guess. 

I just love the versatility of EVFs. Bring on the New, baby!

-Dave-

[bcooter]

Yep, it was the control placement--coupled with the fact that better leaked promo pics showed the camera wasn't a balsawood mockup--that changed my take on the E-M1 from meh to yeah. The function button up top next to the shutter release is key for me, as it is on the E-M5...I use it to switch on/off the EVF mag for manual focusing. Index finger on the func., middle on the shutter. Took a day or two to adjust, now feels so natural that I find myself using my middle finger on other cameras too. Better than using it at them, I guess. 

I just love the versatility of EVFs. Bring on the New, baby!

-Dave-

Dave you got a good attitude man.

BC

[RFPhotography]

Here's a suggestion, try talking about the same thing as the rest of us instead of misreading posts, making various erroneous assumptions and irrelevant analogies. As then a more sensible conversation could be had.
Here's a clue for you, no-one suggested using film instead of digital for pro work. Another one - digital cameras have been good enough for many years now, the main difference being they are a heck of a lot cheaper to get the same high end quality. What hasn't changed is how manufacturers deliberately hobble cameras.

Oh, fuck me, get over yourself.  My reply was in direct response to your 'clients don't hire cameras' comment.  If you don't have the ability to think laterally, that's not my problem.  I never said digital cameras aren't 'good enough', nor that they haven't been for some time.  In actuality, I made basically that same statement in post #31.  Perhaps if you actually read and weren't so intent on just being a c*&$ (or, since you're in the UK, I'll put in local parlance - a complete git) you may have seen that.  I do, still, not agree that image quality is only as good as it was 10+ years ago.

[OldRoy]

I've been using the E M5 (as we must now call it) since shortly after its introduction. I also have a now little-used D700 and a decent set of very expensive, very heavy lenses.

I can live with the shortcomings of the E M5's EVF. I've learned to live with the limitations of CDAF. So the E M1 looks like something that I'll pass on. No doubt it's very nice but doesn't seem to offer sufficient advantages to make it worthwhile trading in the E M5 at a thumping great loss. If money were no object, sure, I'd get it. None of the early previews I've seen make any comment as to whether the dog's dinner OS of the E M5 has been improved in the new camera. It'd be the first thing I'd check out if I was reviewing the camera. How could you avoid it being the first thing you'd look at?

The new Olympus 12-40 2.8 looks like a superb (large, heavy, expensive) lens (Ming Thein has done a pre-release review). I can't help thinking that bulky lenses like this are somewhat opposed to the spirit of M4/3. Whilst I have four decent M4/3 primes the derided 12-50 kit lens tends to spend a lot more time on the camera. I've noticed that, other things being equal, what I point the combo at tends to influence the results more significantly that which lens I'm using.

It's a relief to be off the new model acquisition roller-coaster. But I sometimes wish I was rich enough to stay on it.

Roy

[jjj]

Oh, fuck me, get over yourself.  My reply was in direct response to your 'clients don't hire cameras' comment.  If you don't have the ability to think laterally, that's not my problem.  I never said digital cameras aren't 'good enough', nor that they haven't been for some time.  In actuality, I made basically that same statement in post #31.  Perhaps if you actually read and weren't so intent on just being a c*&$ (or, since you're in the UK, I'll put in local parlance - a complete git) you may have seen that.  I do, still, not agree that image quality is only as good as it was 10+ years ago.

Seems you are remarkably offensive too, as well as being unable to read people's posts correctly.
BTW, thinking laterally does not mean bad analogies or talking at cross purposes. Such as your wittering on about rangefinder cameras when others are talking very specifically about reflex cameras or the the irrelevant nonsense about film when discussing digital quality. Besides if it would take you weeks to produce some film images, maybe it's because you struggle to read instructions on film packet too. Who knows.

[jjj]

I have just looked at and read about the camera controls, particularly those operable with the fingers of the right hand, and my conclusion is that the extra space at top-right provided by the deeper grip greatly expands the range of controls that fall quickly under the fingers (one more dial, several more buttons), which to me is another ergonomic advantage, at least for us "control freak" photographers.

After just playing with my old OM cameras that the EM5 is based on, both with and without the grip/motordrive. I noticed that unlike newer digital camera, it didn't need the grip and is probably nicer without it. I think this is because the camera is so small and light it can get away with it, whereas my 5Ds are so big  and chunky you really need the extra grip.
This does as you have pointed out, have the added benefit of giving more real estate to the more numerous button and dials that are needed these days. So I will be interested to try the new camera out, but it was the size of the EM5 that attracted me most so I hope it doesn't make the new camera too big for me.