Have you used it (EM-1) very much in rotten (low) light, with people? What about skin tones?
Rob C
OK.
Before I answer remember this line. Penis Envy. If you like old Sean Connery then the em-1 probably isn't your cup of single malt.
Rotten low light.Nothing without a tripod works well in rotten low light. I mean you can shot it and some cameras like the 5d3, or d3/d4 will smooth the heck out of it but honestly nothing really works that well past 1000 or so iso unless you don't mind doing a cinema look and silouettes.
Remember between f 4 and 5.6 on a 35mm camera is 2.8 on a m43 so what takes almost 3,000 iso Full Frame takes under 1,000 iso on m43
Skin TonesBeautiful as any camera I've used. The camera is adjustable, you can make a look, even if you shoot raw and they color quickly because next to my 1dx which has more of a global color the em-1/em5 have more specific color.
They do hold up as well as my Canon 1dx.
But under really good light medium format kills, even old medium format.
_______________________________
I never bought m43 for stills, I bought the pana m43 for smaller motion cameras to compliment our REDs.
I bought the em-5 just because I wanted to though It took me two months to actually trust that that tiny sensor.
I actually believe the em-5 shoots a slightly prettier file than the em-1 (different sensors) bought the em-1 because it had a pc connection and is a much better thought out camera.
Also sleep can be turned off when tethering wi-fi to an ipad (what a drag to tether to an ipad)
______________________________
To me the upside of the em-1 is.
1. It's built beautifully. Not leica like because of the design, but think what a film nikon would feel like if Leica built it.
Obviously Olympus hit it with the em-5 then the em-1 because Sony, Nikon and Fuji copied it, though without the feel and in the A7's case, the build quality.
You really have to use it to understand how well olympus makes this camera.
2. wysiwyg viewfinder. I use the em-4 add on finder because it goes waist level to straight on and it keeps my nose away from the rear lcd. Either way you can adjust any of the viewfinders to more closely match your computer. Not exact but closer.
3. Any lens. This comes with an asterick because whatever lens you use you double the length. 25 is 50, 42 is 84, 12 is 24.
4. Manual focus. You can actually see what your shooting. Now it takes a while to get use to an evf.
5. Static Auto focus. Wicked fast and covers the whole frame (almost)
6. Tracking focus. Not as bad as people think, but not the camera to shoot at Silverstone. Could be some day, but today that 1dx or D4 territory.
7. Size. I'm not a walk around take a picture guy, but 6 lenses and two bodies can easily fit in a small messenger bag, but see #1 on downsides.
8. Format. 43 is great for verticals, not great for horizontal. If I shot fine art, then everything would be 43 format and having those extra sides for some reason let's you allow the image to breath.
9. Touch screen that works, though I turn it off cause the switches are easier.
10. Once set up you have built your own camera.
The downside of the em-1
1. Penis envy. It's really difficult to look at a little camera and a little sensor and think your going to be serious about the image.
I can prove it's good, I do use it, but I always feel in the back of my mind I could do better. (in so, so many ways).
Though I think if the olympus was the size of a pentax 6x7 and had a fake frame format and big lenses and you saw the output people would scream "yea boy, that's the way big film like cameras shoot."
2. Other cameras, which translates to penis envy. I wanted the Sony A7 to be better. I tested it time and time again against my em-5 and every file, every time was not up to the olympus. I know some people are going to show me a chart to prove the opposite, but I never saw it.
In fact I was very surprised since the em-5 has a Sony sensor and shoots a beautiful file
3. Lenses. The negative is I dig lenses and they all have a use. The Oly primes are great most are fast, the slowest f2. Nothing wider than 12 (24mm) at F4. Then there is the non micro 43 lenses that are semi big but all fast f2 for a 150 (300mm in ff).
That's a great lens. The Pana Leicas are nice from 1.2 to 1.4 but are expensive over a grand for each.
Really all the lenses are covered, it just costs to really cover and want autofocus. If you manually focus I'd just buy the three .95 Voightlanders and be done with it. Those are beautiful lenses, period.
4. Crazy ass menu. Doesn't revert back to where you were. It takes hours to get it right and the manual is just as insane. Now once you've done it, it's done and your camera is really "your" camera.
The menu makes sense it's just deep, deep and deep.
(Ever see your Parents try to program a vhs recorder? Now you get the idea of the olympus menu).
IMO
BC
PS Just one other thing. Once you get past the screwy menu, the evf learning, the setup, as crazy as this sounds for an all electronic device but it becomes very analog. It's like picking up an F3 and start shooting. Sure you gotta set you wb and iso, but that's like loading film so no big, but of all the cameras out there, except Leica, in the modern world this camera is analog and I think even more so than the fuji and I can't really explain why.
