The Sony A7 and Olympus em-1 non test

[bcooter]

The non A7 test.

I want to buy an A7.  Since I shoot people and I really like evf cameras, I wanted tracking autofocus, I like the smaller form factor for a lot of our work, when I heard of the FF Sony went straight to the Sony store and shot to a card.  Obviously in store photography is difficult and not the way I shoot.

i'll admit since I use the 43 cameras for some of our video and absolutely love the olympus omd e-5  I expected the full frame sony to blow it in the water.

The first results shocked me.

The A7 had double shutter blur and that egg shell effect, but these were jpegs.

So I went  back and did it again with raw comparing my em-5. The Sony A7 I kept at 1250 iso and The oly at 1000.

This time shot raws and was positive the Sony would just bury the olympus considering the em-5 it's a previous generation camera.

Came back to the studio and really had nothing to compare. Nearly every frame from the Sony has shutter blur (or some kind of blur) where the Olympus was crazy spot on in focus and sharpness.

Granted the olympus had more noise by about 20%, but pretty noise and I could kill it in software, though I like the look of a little film like grain.

So I tested a third time.

This time found a dealer that had both the new omd em1 and the Sony a7,   set them both up as close as possible with low noise reduction and equivalent lenses.

Took a laptop that was calibrated and went in and shot and shot and shot.

Looking at the raws, I would have sworn the the files from the omd were full frame in quality, the A7 being the 43 crop.  In fact there was such a difference I was positive we did something wrong, did it again,  all at 800 iso.

Bottom line, the Sony files had a global color look where the olympus had specific colors that were obvious.  

Putting each camera side by side both with the right angle grip the A7 felt lightweight and flimsy where the olympus felt titanium solid.

If I didn't know better and was asked price, I'd say the Olympus would cost more, but it's the opposite.

But the build quality is the real kicker.  I don't shoot PJ work but I'd fell more secure to take the olympus into a war zone than the sony.

Also the Oly track focus was far superior to the Sony and the viewfinder of the olympus if way superior in look and size.   On the Sony you see jagged lines on hard subjects that are kind of like looking at tv screen, where the Olympus when adjusted looks like a film.

With the Olympus I never think of it as an electronic viewfinder the Son never let's you forget it's a miniature tv.

Once again the file detail and look was very different.  The sony soft and though less noise, had that caking, egg shell look on skintones and the focus would be on then off, then on and this was shooting a stationary subject.

Though the Sony has more resolution the olympus had more real detail.

Also given the fact he focus points on the oly covered more territory   and it has more adjustable crops from 4:3 , 2:3 to 16x9.

But the main thing is the file.  The olympus has more noise which as I say can be reduced either in post or camera, but with some thoughtful processing it can be set to a film like look.  The Oly produces a very non digital looking image.

The color response is what I love.   Other than my medium format backs, no smaller format has that separate color look, which allows a lot of adjustable movement in post.

So I bought an em-1 to go with my em-5's and my gh3(s) I use for video.

The olympus isn't perfect and it took me an evening to make adjustments where it would match the em-5 (which I still think has a little better look0, but once set, the Olympus becomes intuitive

I debated on whether to show this image, shot at a sony store with three types of available light sources, LED's from the multitude of tv screens, fluorescence from the counters and tungsten from the the overheads, along with gelled lights everywhere.

This is NOT a portfolio image and I took it in about 4 seconds and I'd show the Sony file but it wouldn't be fare, because the sony has motion blur and regardless of setting has either a global orange color or a corrected neutral with a lot of noise in the blue channel.

Also with this OLY image I purposely crushed the blacks though there is detail in all the shadows if I want to go that way.

This is a very difficult lighting situation for any camera to hit color, because of all the difference sources.

(cropped from a horizontal frame, 1000 iso, no noie reduction, 75mm f2, 200th of a second).

Same image at 100%

http://www.russellrutherford.com/stony_store_large.jpg

Also remember I like to accent grain, not always make it disappear, though i easily could.

Keep in mind I went to buy the Sony, nothing else, never planned on another m43 camera, but I couldn't deny every test.

IMO

BC


PS  If I shot only tripod and wanted more resolution at low iso's and use converted canon lenses, I might go with the A7r, but for what I do, the sony just didn't compete with the em-1.

I know most people won't believe it, but my suggestion is to try both, because I think you'll be surprised.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi BC,

Thanks for sharing!

I really like that image. I don't really always appreciate fashion work, but I like solid real life images.

Best regards
Erik

The non A7 test.

I want to buy an A7.  Since I shoot people and I really like evf cameras, I wanted tracking autofocus, I like the smaller form factor for a lot of our work, when I heard of the FF Sony went straight to the Sony store and shot to a card.  Obviously in store photography is difficult and not the way I shoot.

i'll admit since I use the 43 cameras for some of our video and absolutely love the olympus omd e-5  I expected the full frame sony to blow it in the water.

The first results shocked me.

The A7 had double shutter blur and that egg shell effect, but these were jpegs.

So I went  back and did it again with raw comparing my em-5. The Sony A7 I kept at 1250 iso and The oly at 1000.

This time shot raws and was positive the Sony would just bury the olympus considering the em-5 it's a previous generation camera.

Came back to the studio and really had nothing to compare. Nearly every frame from the Sony has shutter blur (or some kind of blur) where the Olympus was crazy spot on in focus and sharpness.

Granted the olympus had more noise by about 20%, but pretty noise and I could kill it in software, though I like the look of a little film like grain.

So I tested a third time.

This time found a dealer that had both the new omd em1 and the Sony a7,   set them both up as close as possible with low noise reduction and equivalent lenses.

Took a laptop that was calibrated and went in and shot and shot and shot.

Looking at the raws, I would have sworn the the files from the omd were full frame in quality, the A7 being the 43 crop.  In fact there was such a difference I was positive we did something wrong, did it again,  all at 800 iso.

Bottom line, the Sony files had a global color look where the olympus had specific colors that were obvious.  

Putting each camera side by side both with the right angle grip the A7 felt lightweight and flimsy where the olympus felt titanium solid.

If I didn't know better and was asked price, I'd say the Olympus would cost more, but it's the opposite.

But the build quality is the real kicker.  I don't shoot PJ work but I'd fell more secure to take the olympus into a war zone than the sony.

Also the Oly track focus was far superior to the Sony and the viewfinder of the olympus if way superior in look and size.   On the Sony you see jagged lines on hard subjects that are kind of like looking at tv screen, where the Olympus when adjusted looks like a film.

With the Olympus I never think of it as an electronic viewfinder the Son never let's you forget it's a miniature tv.

Once again the file detail and look was very different.  The sony soft and though less noise, had that caking, egg shell look on skintones and the focus would be on then off, then on and this was shooting a stationary subject.

Though the Sony has more resolution the olympus had more real detail.

Also given the fact he focus points on the oly covered more territory   and it has more adjustable crops from 4:3 , 2:3 to 16x9.

But the main thing is the file.  The olympus has more noise which as I say can be reduced either in post or camera, but with some thoughtful processing it can be set to a film like look.  The Oly produces a very non digital looking image.

The color response is what I love.   Other than my medium format backs, no smaller format has that separate color look, which allows a lot of adjustable movement in post.

So I bought an em-1 to go with my em-5's and my gh3(s) I use for video.

The olympus isn't perfect and it took me an evening to make adjustments where it would match the em-5 (which I still think has a little better look0, but once set, the Olympus becomes intuitive

I debated on whether to show this image, shot at a sony store with three types of available light sources, LED's from the multitude of tv screens, fluorescence from the counters and tungsten from the the overheads, along with gelled lights everywhere.

This is NOT a portfolio image and I took it in about 4 seconds and I'd show the Sony file but it wouldn't be fare, because the sony has motion blur and regardless of setting has either a global orange color or a corrected neutral with a lot of noise in the blue channel.

Also with this OLY image I purposely crushed the blacks though there is detail in all the shadows if I want to go that way.

This is a very difficult lighting situation for any camera to hit color, because of all the difference sources.

(cropped from a horizontal frame.

Same image at 100%

http://www.russellrutherford.com/stony_store_large.jpg

Also remember I like to accent grain, not always make it disappear, though i easily could.

Keep in mind I went to buy the Sony, nothing else, never planned on another m43 camera, but I couldn't deny every test.

IMO

BC


PS  If I shot only tripod and wanted more resolution at low iso's and use converted canon lenses, I might go with the A7r, but for what I do, the sony just didn't compete with the em-1.

I know most people won't believe it, but my suggestion is to try both, because I think you'll be surprised.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

There must be a special place in the bandwidth hell for those who repost the whole OP, just to add a word or two of their own. Especially when it is probably the longest post ever written on LuLa (which, in this case, is a good thing).

To the OP: Hallelujah! Nice to see someone dares to go against spec warriors!

[bcooter]

There must be a special place in the bandwidth hell for those who repost the whole OP, just to add a word or two of their own. Especially when it is probably the longest post ever written on LuLa (which, in this case, is a good thing).

To the OP: Hallelujah! Nice to see someone dares to go against spec warriors!

Slobodan,

You know I would have loved to do a test in the style I work showing the comparison between the olympus and the sony and I would have put up the Sony files, but they were so far below the em5 and em1 nobody would have believed it.  I know I didn't.  

Also to be clear, I very much wanted the A7 to work for me.   I have some zeiss a mount zooms, so lenses wouldn't be a huge leap and just like everyone, it's hard to get past one camera is full frame, the olympus is 1/2 to 1/4 the sensor size (depending on how you add).  

The thing is I can't get past what i see.

I don't mean to diss anyone's purchase either, because if you buy something, like something then no matter what anyone uses then it's right for you.

Buying into 43 is kind of a crap shoot.  The micro 43 lenses are good to very good, the primes are fast to semi fast, the zooms are good (not great) but a 2.8 way to slow for this size format.

The one lens they are missing is a fast 100 f 1.8 lens, because i love the Nikon 200 f2.   That lens is the only magical modern nikon lens I've used.

Then again everything in the digital age is a crap shoot.   If I ever sell my micro 43 system I'd probably lose more than 1/2 price, but since it cost about 1/2 price of any full frame camera that's not really a bad deal.

I'll tell you though, these paid presenters for camera companies send me crazy.   I saw a video from B+H where some Sony photographer (what are the called, "explorers of photons?",  was saying the A series would be the best PJ camera you could buy, given the fact it's so well built and focuses well.

OK, I guess that person hasn't loaded up an em-1 or em-5 because especially the 1 is built to military quality and it feels as tough as any camera I've held.   Also it focuses twice as fast as both Sony A bodies.

I don't expect someone who is paid by Sony to diss the camera they represent, that would be unfair and silly, but also don't throw up a chart and say the Sony is 4 times the quality without shooting both.

Also and probably this is just memories of the past but the olympus feels like it has camera company dna  and as i've said the Sony reminds me of I mac dna.  

But I'll tell you, I love working with these smaller cameras.   When we're on set shooting motion I always have one or two on my shoulder, even when I'm directing and shooting the REDs because all of a sudden I see something and pull out the camera with the lens I want and shoot it.  I't like going back in time and I can't imagine having three 1d series on my shoulder.

The form factor of the 43 cameras is just perfect and olympus is virtually the same size as the om film cameras of the past.

Now if olympus made a full frame camera would I buy it . ..  first thought is heck yea, but then I think why if I'm getting what i need.

Also if I feel I need more detail I'm planing on buying a leica s2 when I return from this current proejct.

Sorry for the long post again.

BC

[Telecaster]

After much faffing about with "legacy" lenses on m43 (had lotsa fun doing it, though!) the one I actually use regularly is a Zeiss 100/2. A native option, hopefully less bulky & weighty, in the same focal length/speed range would be lovely.

Kinda quiet in this thread, isn't it...

 

-Dave-

[bcooter]

Kinda quiet in this thread, isn't it...

 

-Dave-

Dave,

I think when someone writes what i wrote nobody really believes it, or wants to believe it.

I know in a way I didn't. until you actually put the two cameras side by side.

Actually, that's not true.  Pick up an A7 the an em1 and anyone would know the difference in quality, but if you follow the paid bloggers that juke the numbers , or buy into the hype, then well, you make a different call.

What is really hard to get past is the viewfinder. The olympus looks like film and is detailed and solid, where the A7 looks like a jagged tv screen.

Maybe hype rules . . . .

But  . . . maybe not.  You already hear of eggshell and focus issues on the A7 and especially the  R which should produce a much better file than the A7.

Then again I don't make a penny regardless of what anyone buys.

All I care about is the final image and if the camera allows me to get it.

If the olympus has one single issue, it's not the sensor size, or the 43 crop, or the lens options because they're lenses of super expensive to bargain basement available.

The em1 has to be set up exactly for the style of shooting you do.  You can make it smooth, global in color, very specific in color, film like noise, or baby butt smooth.

I like the build your own film look and I love the build quality.

I think it's a hell of a camera that's well thought out, compared to the Sony which I feel is a cost savings work in progress.

IMO

BC

[Chris L]

Dave,

I think when someone writes what i wrote nobody really believes it, or wants to believe it.

I know in a way I didn't. until you actually put the two cameras side by side."

I read this thread and it stopped me from buying the sony a7r. I wasn't sold on it before and after reading this and a few other threads I am off of it. I am a canon shooter and was ready to switch. The Oly sounds great but I need more DR if I am gonna switch platforms. I do like that the Oly feels like color neg to you, thats the look I like. I just need more DR however. Might just get a Nikon and one lens for now until canon makes a move.

[bcooter]

I read this thread and it stopped me from buying the sony a7r. I wasn't sold on it before and after reading this and a few other threads I am off of it. I am a canon shooter and was ready to switch. The Oly sounds great but I need more DR if I am gonna switch platforms. I do like that the Oly feels like color neg to you, thats the look I like. I just need more DR however. Might just get a Nikon and one lens for now until canon makes a move.

I agree about more DR, actually to me it was a thicker file.  

My goal is a neg film look that I can move around "without" that dreaded global color look.

At first with the em-5 I thought it was thin, but it turns out they just came out of the factory over sharp and slightly thin.

With both the em1 and 5 there is a kind of hidden setting curve where you can pull in the highlights, open the shadows and the difference was night and day.

The upside of the omd series is it's configurable.  The downside is it's so configurable and to set the menu you need to make notes as you go as it doesn't revert back to the last menu setting, though once set, you never have to go into the menu again as it has a lcd menu that let's you change all the basics very quickly.

Understand I'm not try to sell you or unsell anyone.  I'm just saying how much I've learned on these cameras and so far, I'm really surprised in a good way.


BC

P.S.   The very strangest thing about these omds are they are very, very, very digital in their set up, but once done, they become an analog camera in their functions.

[Telecaster]

BC, that curve adjustment you mention does make a big difference in JPEG thickness. I discovered it—actually I'd known but forgot about it...so many different things to tweak!—when I began using the E-M5 with the Olympus macro lens to dupe transparencies from my 1980s Middle East travels for online sharing with my family in the UK. I was finding it hard with the dense Kodachromes to keep good highlight tonality while exposing enough to capture the shadows. A little tweak of that curve and there it was: good tonal separation from dark to bright. This let me do all the processing work on my iPad with the JPEGs (quick & fun, in keeping with the intended purpose) rather than sitting down at my desktop and developing RAWs (slower & more work).

With the E-M1 I'm still finding nooks & crannies in the menus that I'd previously missed. Today it was bugging me that half-pressing the shutter button to AF was also locking the exposure value. Of course there's a menu item for that! You can set up the button to behave in a variety of ways for single AF, continuous AF and MF. I shoulda known...now I've got that sorted.

I've attached a pic of me, digitized with the E-M5, sitting atop the Israeli visitor center at Mt. Hermon, in the Golan (occupied territory or part of greater Israel depending on who you ask), in February 1984. Kodachrome 25 in a Canon AE-1 (later stolen...I knew who did it too, the bastards) with a 50/1.4 lens. My Nederlander friend Kees took it early in the morning after a nighttime drive north from the village where we were living & working. Later on we (six of us, including my girlfriend Juliane, from Heidelberg) slid down the mountain on crude snowboards, then drove way down south and spent the late afternoon & early evening soaking in hot springs. Fun times!

I may've posted a version of this here some months ago but that was before getting the tonal stuff sorted. There's spatial detail in the darker areas of my jacket that I've crushed out due to muddiness in the film. This sort of dull shadow tonality was one of the things Velvia was designed to address!

-Dave-

[EricWHiss]

BC,
Really appreciate your taking time to post your experience on these cameras.  Feedback/findings like this yours much more valuable than a review.
Eric

[Jim Pascoe]

Russell

I always enjoy your ramblings on cameras!   I shoot a lot of stills and video with my two GH2's and a few mainly prime lenses - including the Voigtlander 25mm .95. often at weddings etc.

Although I still use my 1 DS 3 for portrait shoots etc, I am very interested in the new Olympus EM1.  I had a play in a dealer last week and love the feel of the camera, although the staff did not seem really conversant with the set up of the camera and I can see it will take some learning.

I can see it will be good for stills, but how is the video compared to the GH2's.  The GH's are great image quality wise, I just find they are not well built and the buttons on the rh side alway seemed to be accidentally pushed in the hustle of a shoot.  The video in the Oly has to be good otherwise I probably cannot justify the purchase.  I was thinking of the GH3 but prefer the size and build of the EM-1.

Hope you have time to reply.

Jim

[Chuck Jones]

James, did you check a second body?  I'm shooting the A7R myself and loving it, but Paul just tested an A7 and did not find the problems your describing.  Wondering if it mite be possible you just had a bad body, or one the settings had been screwed with?  I know you well enough to know that you would like my A7R, with the right lenses you would like it VERY much

[bcooter]

James, did you check a second body?  I'm shooting the A7R myself and loving it, but Paul just tested an A7 and did not find the problems your describing.  Wondering if it mite be possible you just had a bad body, or one the settings had been screwed with?  I know you well enough to know that you would like my A7R, with the right lenses you would like it VERY much

Revised

Jim,

I'm hesitant to say any camera is better, other than some cameras are better for me.

I use the gh3s for motion imagery and they're great, more than great and well built considering and though we have REDs and use them we just cut 16 videos on a project that totals over 200 minutes and 90% of the footage is gh3.   I've treated the gh3's pretty rough and zero glitches but no the olympus doesn't shoot the same video file, though if you know your way around post production it has some benefits.

I think it's 28 mbs vs. the gh3's 72 all intra file and the gh3's video follow focus is crazy good . . . but if you need it, the olympus has the best image stabilization I've seen in video in any camera.  It's like a free stedicam.  I don't use the em-5 or now the em-1 for motion imagery often, but if you careful, take advantage of the 5 aixs stabilization, it's worth it just for that.

I wouldn't buy this version of the olympus just for video, but I've used it for motion, it worked for what I needed.


Chuck,

Glad you like your R.   Never touched an R though tested three A7's at two different stores, all with the same results.  I'm not saying the A7 is bad, but just like the above quote the omd is better for me.

The last time I tested the A7 we did all we could to match the em1 in settings which is possible but you can get kind of close.

I personally don't care about mega detail, but do want quick solid focus which the olympus was much better at, a file with distinct colors that aren't global which I also got with the em-1.

But the final decision of the olympus (FOR ME) was it was such a better built camera than the A7, the olympus primes are crazy good and the viewfinder is huge and it goes to different formats from 5:4 to 16x9.

It takes some time to learn, but You can build a film in the viewfinder and it looks like film, with the Sony all I could see is jagged diagonal lines on a TV and it bugged me and looking through a viewfinder and seeing the film you envisioned is a plus.

I understand why people bought the R version because if you want e30 something megapixels that for 2 grand entry fee, that you can stick their canon lenses  on, then the  A7r is it, but the A7  well . . . I wonder if the people that bought the A7  really, really tested it against the em1? 

All I'm saying was don't discount a smaller frame until you've really tried it as a whole package and I'll bet if the Olympus said Full Frame 99% of the buyers wouldn't know the difference.

It's funny, the cinema business doesn't care about mega pixels, they care about look.  An Arri which is used for cinema more than the RED has 2500 px across down sampled to around 2k and you've seen hundreds of movies with this camera and btw: a super 35mm 2k format cropped to 2:1 is a small sensor.

I know this will cause an uproar, but I don't see the cinema world running to 5d3's and d800s to shoot the next skyfall and btw: I have 4k RED's I love the look, though RED drives me nuts and I loved the prices compared to the Arri, but if the new panasoic 4k is close to what is reported, I'll bet I have three of those on set instead of the RED's and those will have 43 sensors.

But none of this matters until you see the final image and I'll show something with production values soon.

Then I'll really know how the em-1 works.

IMO

BC

[eronald]

Mister X,

 Could you explain what these new-fangled things do better than a 1Ds3?
 It's not that I doubt anything, I'm just trying to understand what the advantages are for still imagery.
 Also, you talk a lot about "setting up the EM-1" but I don't understand any of this because for me all the look is adjusted in the Raw converter.

Edmund

I'm hesitant to say any camera is better, other than some cameras are better for me.

BC

[Telecaster]

One of the advantages of using a good EVF is the ability to fine-tune your color or b&w look and then see it as you're shooting. No need to imagine what it'll later look like...it's already there. That can't help but have an impact on how & what you photograph. With my m43 cameras I shoot RAW + JPEG and am perfectly happy using the JPEGs in all non-printing situations. When I do want to print my aim is to make the processed RAW image look like my JPEG but with the benefits of greater bit depth.

I doubt I'll ever buy another camera that doesn't have a high-quality EVF.

-Dave-

[Jim Pascoe]

Mister X,

 Could you explain what these new-fangled things do better than a 1Ds3?
 It's not that I doubt anything, I'm just trying to understand what the advantages are for still imagery.
 Also, you talk a lot about "setting up the EM-1" but I don't understand any of this because for me all the look is adjusted in the Raw converter.

Edmund

Hi Edmund

Not sure who Mr X is - but as I have the Canon in question I might comment.  Size is the most significant point, but of course the M43 can shoot video too - and that through an EVF.  Even the Canons that can shoot video need to use the rear LCD to compose on.  Purely as a shooting tool the 1DS3 is superb, but it depends on what you're shooting.  Quite often I find the EVF is better than an optical finder, especially in low light.

Jim

[eronald]

Hi Edmund

Not sure who Mr X is - but as I have the Canon in question I might comment.  Size is the most significant point, but of course the M43 can shoot video too - and that through an EVF.  Even the Canons that can shoot video need to use the rear LCD to compose on.  Purely as a shooting tool the 1DS3 is superb, but it depends on what you're shooting.  Quite often I find the EVF is better than an optical finder, especially in low light.

Jim

Jim,

The Mr.X bit is an in joke - think of it as standing in for "The Artist who wishes to be called Cooter".

You and Dave do make some interesting points about the EVF - essentially you use it to preview the shot with the color and curves dialed in - it becomes a creative polaroid. And of course video is not something you will do with a 1Ds3.

However, I am curious about how well the actual *still images* compare between the full frame Canon and its fast lenses and the 43 device. Because after all everyone was in love with the *idea* of all those 36 luscious megapixels of Sony sensor, and now suddenly they are talking not file quality but preview convenience.

And BTW, I don't say the 1Ds3 is a marvel, it's just the "old" 35mm state of the art, and Cooter and Associates used to shoot it.

Edmund

[bcooter]

Mister X,

 Could you explain what these new-fangled things do better than a 1Ds3?
 It's not that I doubt anything, I'm just trying to understand what the advantages are for still imagery.
 Also, you talk a lot about "setting up the EM-1" but I don't understand any of this because for me all the look is adjusted in the Raw converter.

Edmund

Mr E.,


Ever watch someone shoot a dslr and I don't care if it's sports, journalism, editorial, advertising, or  a Christmas party.  

They take a snap, pull the camera down and look at the lcd, or in studio run over to the monitor.

Make some adjustments, do it again, make some adjustments do it again and if it's for commerce usually tell the client, I'll bring down the red in the faces, give it a cooler tint, change the contrast a little smoother and  . . . .  well you get the idea.

So the difference.  If you learn a the olympus, as Dave says you can tune it until it almost is exactly what your going to deliver.  Sure we'll work it in post, get it more refined, but basically what you show is what your going to shoot and yes it makes a nice difference to see the image as you like, as you shoot.

Don't take your eye from the viewfinder and it's frozen (if you want) you the photographer sees it and you can make an instant change.

Yes I can do this in C-1 or running a hot folder to lightroom with a Canon, Nikon or Phase and sometimes that's preferable, but it's not mandatory.

Also as mentioned, you can focus in low light (if you so chose) in ways an optical viewfinder didn't.

Tonight I was shooting with an old voightlander 35 1.2 on Oxford street, just doing a little book for my family.   It was fun and easy, you look through the viewfinder make your adjustments, and it's so close to the look you want to portray it's very cool.  I keep about 3 presets of color and tone and just switch films as I go.

As far as size, well I'm not usually a walk around photographer so a big camera isn't an issue, except now we shoot mostly motion imagery and I can throw two of those cameras on my shoulder, they don't get in the way and I can just walk over and shoot, choosing the body and lens I want, with very little break in the action.

Also since I shoot motion I don't think in 35mm full frame lenses, I think cinema focal lengths and m43 to super 35 isn't that big of a leap, and since some of my motion cameras are m43 there is no leap at all, unless I want it to be.

Tonight as I mentioned I was just fooling around for fun, manually focusing the 35 1.2   I played around with tracking focus and the viewfinder of the oly is so large it's easy, you can see exactly what's in focus.  That was fun and allows me to shoot not stopping to change a focal point.

Try to focus a modern dslr manually and hit it 90% of the time.  

The main thing though  is I think the olympus file looks different.  I showed the c--p snapshot I did under mixed light, cropped vertical from a horizontal http://www.russellrutherford.com/stony_store_large.jpg and posted may be too noisy for some, or not smooth enough for someone that does product but for me, it's perfect for a film look.  I think it looks different, I like it.

But will those m43's do everything......NO and I wouldn't use them for everything.  A cosmetic Ad in studio of course not, a series of tethering 20 setups nope, but for a lot of work we're doing yes.

And of course there is one more point.  As I move up field with motion and stills and change these things out every 18months how much money are you going to lose?   $600, $800.  Try selling a 1dx in 18months.  Your talking $3,000, x 2 and no I don't have to change a camera every 18 months, but when something comes out like a panasonic 4k I will make the change, so will many others.

But as I say what I buy I buy for me and I'm always open to changing my mind, though the point I was making is Olympus came out with the em-1 sold a bunch of them and everybody loved it until Sony poped out a full frame look alike and the world stopped, mostly because of 30 something megapixels.  

I also thought s__t I guess I better try it and I somewhat did and still bought an em-1 because I think it's a better camera, but I've never said I was mentally stable.


IMO

Mr. X.

[eronald]

J,

 It's clear there's real ergonomic novelty happening here.

 I guess the next step is going to be better controls for whipping up a "film" on site. Or maybe a huge built-in catalog of images which have been shot with various styles, and you just run a thumbwheel through them to choose your base look ...

 In a way this is funny because consumer cams have been doing rear-screen styles for ages, and we never noticed. And of course there's Instagram

 I leaf through the trendy photo magazines in my local newskiosk, and the quality of the imagery is dirt, but the pix are all totally wacky. Maybe 43 is the video equivalent of the electric guitar for pop music - the right tool for the times.

 What you say about focus is interesting. Maybe I should really try out an EM-5 or EM1.

 IT DOES MAKE ME SAD that "good color" is now going to be reserved for medical journals, cosmetic ads, portraits of rosy cheeked babies, and nature and porn films.

Edmund

Mr E.,


Ever watch someone shoot a dslr and I don't care if it's sports, journalism, editorial, advertising, or  a Christmas party.  

They take a snap, pull the camera down and look at the lcd, or in studio run over to the monitor.

Make some adjustments, do it again, make some adjustments do it again and if it's for commerce usually tell the client, I'll bring down the red in the faces, give it a cooler tint, change the contrast a little smoother and  . . . .  well you get the idea.

So the difference.  If you learn a the olympus, as Dave says you can tune it until it almost is exactly what your going to deliver.  Sure we'll work it in post, get it more refined, but basically what you show is what your going to shoot and yes it makes a nice difference to see the image as you like, as you shoot.

Don't take your eye from the viewfinder and it's frozen (if you want) you the photographer sees it and you can make an instant change.

Yes I can do this in C-1 or running a hot folder to lightroom with a Canon, Nikon or Phase and sometimes that's preferable, but it's not mandatory.

Also as mentioned, you can focus in low light (if you so chose) in ways an optical viewfinder didn't.

Tonight I was shooting with an old voightlander 35 1.2 on Oxford street, just doing a little book for my family.   It was fun and easy, you look through the viewfinder make your adjustments, and it's so close to the look you want to portray it's very cool.  I keep about 3 presets of color and tone and just switch films as I go.

As far as size, well I'm not usually a walk around photographer so a big camera isn't an issue, except now we shoot mostly motion imagery and I can throw two of those cameras on my shoulder, they don't get in the way and I can just walk over and shoot, choosing the body and lens I want, with very little break in the action.

Also since I shoot motion I don't think in 35mm full frame lenses, I think cinema focal lengths and m43 to super 35 isn't that big of a leap, and since some of my motion cameras are m43 there is no leap at all, unless I want it to be.

Tonight as I mentioned I was just fooling around for fun, manually focusing the 35 1.2   I played around with tracking focus and the viewfinder of the oly is so large it's easy, you can see exactly what's in focus.  That was fun and allows me to shoot not stopping to change a focal point.

Try to focus a modern dslr manually and hit it 90% of the time.  

The main thing though  is I think the olympus file looks different.  I showed the c--p snapshot I did under mixed light, cropped vertical from a horizontal http://www.russellrutherford.com/stony_store_large.jpg and posted may be too noisy for some, or not smooth enough for someone that does product but for me, it's perfect for a film look.  I think it looks different, I like it.

But will those m43's do everything......NO and I wouldn't use them for everything.  A cosmetic Ad in studio of course not, a series of tethering 20 setups nope, but for a lot of work we're doing yes.

And of course there is one more point.  As I move up field with motion and stills and change these things out every 18months how much money are you going to lose?   $600, $800.  Try selling a 1dx in 18months.  Your talking $3,000, x 2 and no I don't have to change a camera every 18 months, but when something comes out like a panasonic 4k I will make the change, so will many others.

But as I say what I buy I buy for me and I'm always open to changing my mind.

IMO

Mr. X.

[bcooter]

J,
 IT DOES MAKE ME SAD that "good color" is now going to be reserved for medical journals, cosmetic ads, portraits of rosy cheeked babies, and nature and porn films.

Edmund

Edmund,

No, no.

Not crappy color, color of the moment, color as  guide like a instant film (and not an instigram film).

I've always said how cool would it be to have knobs on your camera and make the film you wanted in the camera.  Now we can do it and see it as we frame and shoot.

This doesn't make it easier or take the skill away, this allows the photographer to see design what they're shooting in regards color, tone, composition and lens.

Isn't that total control?

The 1ds3 you use shoots pretty color, but it's global and it's limited until you go through layers and layers of post at least with the gazzilion images I shot with those cameras.

With the em-1 you set your look and use the jpeg as your guide.

To me this is an amazing plus, but not crappy color, but a specific film, just the film you can see until your ready to present.

Everybody that doesn't like evfs finds fault and I'm saying with the em1, there are four advantages.   The ability to see "your" film look, adjustable formats from 4:3 to 16:9, a refresh rate that has less blackout than and ovf and the ability to view a huge viewfinder and manually focus a lens and in light and dark even without the magnifying setting.

When was the last time we could do that?

This is as Nikon says, puts the photograph back in the hands of the photographer, literally.

In regards to pixels, frame size, whatever . . . well I've explained it and except for two lenses I'd like in the 43 system most is more than covered, from f.95 manually focus, to 400mm equivalent primes.

The downside is small, but no I don't see this camera as good enough, just the opposite and when I combine the olympus with the pana gh3's, there is little you can't do in modern imaging at bargain prices compared to where we were just a few years ago.

Once again, I really am not dissing the Sony A7 (know nothing about the R), but I'll bet few people tested the em1 next to the A7, from shoot to final post production.

If they did I bet they'd see things differently.

IMO

BC

P.S.   I'll agree 50% that some editorial and commercial photography is c__p and the new economic new has knocked the poot out of production, but I also see some beautiful imagery and the thing I like is it's not all normal or safe, or just post production effects.

There is a new look of believable but unique, a combination of planned real and I like it, in fact I like it a lot.

When life throws you lemons, make lemonade.  Or as you would say a Lemon Pressee.