Time to catch up with some E-M1 news. First of all on top you can see a funny Nikon D4 vs Olympus E-M1 video comparison 🙂
Full E-M1 review at Digitalversus:
It’s hard to find fault with the Olympus OM-D E-M1. With enhanced picture quality, a speedier autofocus, a nice wide viewfinder, a 10 fps burst mode and an all-weather finish, the E-M1 has plenty of qualities to win over enthusiasts and pros. Olympus has managed to build an excellent compact system camera that’s smaller and lighter than an SLR but still offers first-rate responsiveness and excellent picture quality.
Diglloyd is also testing the camera and writes:
But shooting it for a while, I soon found that the fun factor and efficiency factors are so superior to the Leica M Typ 240 that I was loathe to put it away. Not the least of which is vastly superior EVF, which makes the Leica VF-2 look like a dull and blurred child’s game gadget.
E-M1 Store Links:
Olympus E-M1 body at Amazon, Adorama and BHphoto, Amazon DE (via DL), Amazon UK (via DL), Amazon ES (via DL), WexUK, Topshot FI, CameraWorldUK.
Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO Lens at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, AmazonDE (viaDL), Amazon ES (via DL).
Olympus E-M1 with 12-40mm Lens kit at Amazon DE (via DL), WexUK and CameraWorldUK, Amazon UK (via DL), Amazon ES (via DL).
Olympus E-M1 with 12-50mm Lens kit at Amazon DE (via DL), WexUK, CameraWorldUK, Amazon UK (via DL), Amazon ES (via DL).
Olympus EP-13 Eyecup for E-M1 at Adorama and BHphoto.
Olympus HLD-7 Battery Grip for E-M1 at Amazon, Adorama and BHphoto.
Olympus LC-62D Metal Front Lens Cap for 12-40mm at Adorama and BHphoto.
Olympus LH-66 Lens Hood for 12-40mm at Adorama and BHphoto.
113 Responses
How cute! This was my scenario for giving up my Nikon system and switching to MFT a few years ago. On a walkabout in the Shenandooah National Forest, I loaded my Nikon gear in a packpack, attached the tripod … and well, I COULDN’T MOVE it was so heavy 🙁 In MFT, I’ve rediscovered photography. Now, although I have the P2, PM1, PL3, P3, PM2, and PL5, I find myself most often with the PM1 and the PM2 (the larger camera bodies seem to be reserved for in-house portrait work). I mean, what else would fit in the tiniest camera bag I could find for my belt when I hit the trails on my bicycle than a PM1 with a Panasonic 14mm or 20mm pancake. Sorry, I’ve tried the other combinations; they don’t work. What I especially like about Olympus MFT cameras is that the sensor (and therefore the IQ) in the PM1 is essentially the same as the P3 and the sensor in the PM2 is essentially the same as the P5 or the OMD-EM5/EM1 for that matter. It is a true system. No dumming down for less costly models. You can choose the form factor you want for the task rather than the sensor you need for the task … and all of accessories are generally interchangeable across models and years.
Why didn’t you keep the Nikon for in-house portrait work than and bought only one(or two (not thousands ;))) small mft body?
Biggstr, you are obviously an Olympus lackey. Seriously, you “COULDN’T MOVE”??!
Oh, and based upon your post, somehow you also own all of these cameras:
P2, PM1, PL3, P3, PM2, and PL5
You’ve obviously never ridden a mountain bike or skied in the back country with a Nikon DSLR + 1 decent tele lens in your backpack. Every 100 grams counts.
Also, not needing to unstrap your pack to reach your camera is priceless.
And you clearly haven’t backpacked.
He was referring to the weight of all his other gear plus the Nikon dSLR and if you’re carrying 40 pounds (or more)on your back then a heavy camera camera and lens does make a difference.
It’s why the ultralight backpackers cut the handles off their toothbrush. When you’re crossing rough terrain or ploughing through deep snow in wild weather every gram counts.
Lugging a DSLR with just 1 good zoom lens will make a big difference in comfort when backpacking. It’s roughly the equivalent of carrying many bottles of water. After a few miles, it will wear on you. Carrying a small m43 body with one zoom lens is fairly tolerable and about the equivalent of 1 to 2 bottles of water.
Yes, I thought it was cute too. I have my E-M5 (but with HLD-6 grip) with 12-50 & 75-300 lenses in my bag along with a couple of things like a small bottle of water & a banana & I still think it starts to get heavy. I’m now seriously considering the new Oly Stylist 1 with 10.7 X zoom (with a constant f/2.8) lens, having the versatility of the same as having a 14-150 lens on the E-M5 but much smaller, for occasions where large prints aren’t necessary & lightness is more paramount.
Of course, I would still keep the E-M5 kit as well for when I want that better quality shot.
Way too easy. Olympus E-M1 and 12-40 wins all the accolades. Olympus should consider making a FF rangefinder styled camera with fixed fast prime, to compete with Sony RX1 and the rumored Fuji X200. It would rule all.
Maybe they understand that better sensors are slowly making FF superfluous? At some point you will have all of the dynamic range and sensitivity you will need and four thirds may even be superfluously large.
Can’t wait for software to shut up all of these narrow depth of field idiots. Since when is a blurry image an advantage? In the next few years the hip thing will be making images bokelicious on your iPhone. I can’t wait to see how fast the FF zealots try to distance themselves from pictures with ridiculously narrow dof.
It’ll be a while b4 small sensors take over FF. FF sensors have way less noise.
Have less noise yes , but NOT ” way less noise ” i Own both system and with a good noise remover, i dare you to see the difference at 3200 ISo , And all primes from M43 are usable wide open , so often on FF you have to stop down cause the too much shallow DOF, that’s where the advantage on M43 is you shot with Lower ISO, cause you are always wide open. Primes on a DSLR FF are often soft wide open. That’s pure physic cause the back of the lens is closer to the sensor on a miroirless camera.
I tjink that is the reason why T. Hogan has used the Equivalence trick of dividing the f/stop of by the size of the sensor the two formats (Sony/Olympus). On average the difference between lenses is only one stop.
If you think that Oly has IBIS the advantage in low light is inessential. What I find more significant is DR, but there too there was such an improvement in m4/3 that the main obstacle to Pro use was removed.
So all that’s left is that you get a bigger size image natively. That is why I think that with Sony’s help Oly will issue a FF35 anyway, perhaps even in 2014. But that won’t be the core of its business, because lenses will keep being too big and/or expensive. FF35 IBIS might re-establish the advantage, but the system will keep being too expensive to be core.
Sony’s mirrorless blitz has limitations in resolution across the frame. In a way mirrored FF35 might still keep the resolution advantage, at the expense of size.
Keep in mind that 4/3 lenses where even more sharp across the frame, because more telecentric. But most ignored them because of size of lens/size of sensor. Now a difference balance has been achieved that is attractive to most. That’s in the end what hs been achieved with the E-M5, and E-M1, pleasure of use.
It looks like a trick indeed. But there’s this confusion of equivalence that’s been discussed many times. We often compare outputs between different systems but we usually don’t compare equivalent images – that is, same shutter speed, same framing, same depth of field. This is only achieved using different apertures which in turn means the total amount of light stays the same – it’s just spread over different area, hence no real advantage in IQ. It’s a bit of a cheat, yes, because nobody really forces us to use smaller apertures on larger sensor cameras, unless the depth of field is too narrow. But we must be aware of the fact that we arbitrarily changed one variable and someone else might just as well arbitrarily change the other.
I am beginning to think here that mirrorless FF35 is a frankenformat that has no great advantages over m4/3.
See here the test pictures of legacy wides of the bridge:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/leo_roos/
P. Potka has also dealt a no small blow to Sony’s haste:
http://www.pekkapotka.com/journal/2013/11/11/tempted-by-the-sony-a7r.html
Nobody realized how lack of stabilization could kill the low light advantage of FF35 over m4/3.
If you use DXO Optics V9 with the new “Prime” noise reduction – any difference can be cleaned up in post
Topaz denoise works well. Very well. I already have that. Doxo is of absolutely no interest.
Jim, I have both. DXO9, I must say, kills all. Phase One, and LR5 suck compared to it. It absolutely kills with the m43 modules loaded for the EM-5 and all my lenses. And the PRIME NR? Outstanding. I wish I could give away my LR and C1Pro now.
Just personal preference, they all work well. Personally I prefer Google over Topaz.
I have to agree with the DXO9 people here…it gets rid of noise like nothing else using the prime noise reduction…it takes longer to use but the results in my findings are superior to Topaz Denoise, adobe camera raw , and the Nik/google software…but in the end I wish I did not have to denoise my image…I am guessing a D4 at ISO 3200 is very usable sooc
Last I used DxO was v 7, I’ll have another look at it.
But they don’t have way less noise–not at the sensitivities most people shoot at. And if things like this every come into production:
http://www.fujifilm.com/news/n130611.html
The dynamic range problem is completely solved at almost any sensor size.
I’m serious when I’m predicting that every image on facebook will be bokelicious this time next year or in 2015. We are so close to having the processing power (and maybe hardware) needed to create a depth map when taking an image on a camera phone. As soon as we have automatic depth-map creation, combined with better sensors, FF will be at a physical disadvantage. The absolute IQ difference will be gone, the at most 2-stop advantage in light gathering power will never be used (except maybe by astrophotographers) and the control over DoF will be irrelevant.
The sony full-frame camera has beautiful IQ right now, undeniably so. But the gap closes more and more every year. Marketers want you to be convinced you need it, just like they’re trying to convince you you need a 4k tv when it’s only 60″ and sits 10 feet away…. You probably don’t need full frame in 2014, and by 2015 it won’t make any sense…
Very good point. For static scenes, I think we have that processing power even now. Depth maps can be calculated from multiple images using epipolar geometry. Images can be stacked to reduce noise. All this processing goes beyond simple exposure and doesn’t require a high end camera. But, many of these techniques have issues with moving objects, highly reflective/absorptive surfaces etc. Therefore I don’t think they can truly replace a “proper” camera. But they are certainly fun to explore and we might be surprised how far they can push the boundaries of even the most crappy smartphone camera.
Steve, I’ve said it many times and I’ll say it again. The amount of noise is determined by the total amount of light gathered during exposure which is a property of the lens/shutter/aperture, not the sensor. Given the same amount of light, any differences in the noise or dynamic range will be due to differences in the sensor efficiencies, not sensor sizes. You can use stabilization + longer shutter speed, wider aperture, larger sensor – all this contributes to total amount of light. But there’s nothing that makes larger sensor inherently less noisy.
That’s not entirely true. They’re less noisy because they have larger pixels–usually. A 16mp 4/3rds sensor would be equivalent to a 64mp FF sensor in pixel size, roughly.
I don’t know of any 64mp FF sensors. A 24mp FF sensor has a physical advantage over a 16mp 4/3rds sensor, but really only when the signal is noisy. This physical advantage comes in increased dynamic range when the signal is not noisy.
Larger or smaller, pixels will only collect as much light as they are exposed to. Given the same amount of light, pictures shown at the same level of detail (output size) will exhibit roughly the same amount of noise. I agree with you that if we look at each pixel individually, larger pixels are generally less noisy. This is always a tradeoff – noise vs. resolution. But the overall picture is a combined effect of all pixels. In fact, since noise reduction algorithms benefit from more resolution (smaller pixels) I would even go as far as to say that if noise reduction is taken into account, smaller pixels are actually better (all other things being equivalent). But of course, this also applies only to a certain point.
Well I don’t know what we’re arguing about then. 🙂
I mean, larger sensors have a physical advantage in being able to have more pixels at the same time as having larger pixels. They are at a more advantageous place, physically, when it comes to the trade-offs between spatial and color/illuminance resolution. So in a way they are less noisy in that they usually always will have a higher SnR for the same f-number. They just have more light to work with at the same f-number: the same illuminance but more area, so more total light.
Where they’re physically inferior (as far as optics goes, not aesthetic beauty) is in having less depth of field for the same f-number and field of view.
Ultimately I’m arguing that we will have enough SnR that the physical advantage of a full-frame sensor is moot in that sense, and that 4/3rds has enough control over DoF that it’s silly and annoying to not be satisfied until a camera is “full-frame.”
Uh no, aperture + shutter determine the amount of light per area. Total amount of light admitted by this is irrelevant, total amount of light delivered to the sensor is what matters. More total light that just falls outside the sensor isn’t used for creating the picture, so simply doesn’t matter except for one thing, internal reflexions, and as a qonsequnce flare.
Really, do you think a lens all of a sudden admits less total light because you stuck a smaller sensor behind it?
There is an advantage and you no doubt can see it at 100% or 200% or whatever.
But for final image viewing unless you’re shooting at very high ISOs or viewing at very large sizes it is largely irrelevant now.
In a few years time m43 will be largely irrelevant as well when the 1″ sensors will be good enough for most people.
Of course camera review sites and the camera makers will be trying to convince you otherwise as they need to make you want more and upgrade regularly.
In my opinion the biggest advantage that FF has for most people is the extra DR but we will soon reach a point where everybody will have sufficient.
Photography is becoming more and more like the Hi-Fi world where a few people are chasing ever more inaudible improvements and convincing themselves that they need to spend $5000 on a set of cables for their high end system as it will transform their listening experience.
Love the $5k cables thing – I could not tell the diffrence between cooker mains cable and some very expencive $1000 silver cables. lol…
They even use these fancy golden-plated cables to transmit digital signal. Zeroes and ones, buffered at each end, where the possibility of distortion at audio sampling frequencies is as remote as aliens landing this X-mass. Even the cheapest certified cable would do just as well but the placebo effect can be very strong.
In the video, to be exact em1 won the accolades with the lumix 12-35.
Hilarious video – not overdone like most of them, but more tongue-in-cheek.
My only question: What’s a chipmunkey, or chipmonkey, or whatever…?
Squirrel…
Sold all my Nikon gear 2 years ago for the OMD EM5. I now own 2 EM5’s, the EM1, E-PL1, and the E-PL5. I can’t believe how much more I enjoy these Olympus cameras over any Nikon I owned! Yes, I am professional photographer with a successful business and yes the Olympus cameras perform perfectly for the weddings, commercial work, family portraits etc I shoot! I don’t even look at the Nikon or Canons anymore and yes I have shot them all. I had a Nikon D4 owner walk past one of my portraits at the lab and he said “that is the sharpest image I have ever seen!” He about fell on the floor when I told him it was from an EM5. People, you do not need to carry around big bulky Nikon and Canon equipment anymore. I have photographers tell me, “you mean I am supposed to show up to a wedding with smaller cameras?” Um yes, I do and have never had an issue. If you are afraid of what people think about your camera and have not blown them away with your work already you should not be shooting professionally. Sorry to be blunt but that’s how I feel. In fact I get rave reviews on looks and they always ask “are you shooting film?” For me the dslrs are dead, sorry if that offends you, but take an OMD out for a day and you will become a believer!
I’m not denying your career but do you have a website? 🙂
http://www.brockbestphotography.com
Awesome! 🙂
I love hearing pros talking about making ‘the switch’.
I made the switch ! From Canon 5D with L serie Lens to EM-1 and GX7 , I’m a still photographer and with the Pana GX7 i don’t need sound blimp anymore, what a relief ! M43 is good enough quality for any billboard, magazine, newspaper or any kind of movie publicity. I will never look back on FullFrame DSLR, never i’ll regret it. I feel like a newborn photographer enjoying working much more than before. I even like shooting with the back LCD so i can see what’s going on around me. If i want more DOF i use software to do it, my clients won’t never notice the difference, this way my shots are never miss by shooting razor thin DOF. And because i always shot the M43 primes wide open i never need to go higher ISO than 3200. Keep it simple, free the weight on your shoulders and go enjoy shooting with those fabulous speedy little camera of M43 !
http://www.yanturcotte.com
I made the switch ! From Canon 5D with L serie Lens to EM-1 and GX7 , I’m a still photographer and with the Pana GX7 i don’t need sound blimp anymore, what a relief ! M43 is good enough quality for any billboard, magazine, newspaper or any kind of movie publicity. I will never look back on FullFrame DSLR, never i’ll regret it. I feel like a newborn photographer enjoying working much more than before. I even like shooting with the back LCD so i can see what’s going on around me. If i want less DOF i use software to do it, my clients won’t never notice the difference, this way my shots are never miss by shooting razor thin DOF. And because i always shot the M43 primes wide open i never need to go higher ISO than 3200. Keep it simple, free the weight on your shoulders and go enjoy shooting with those fabulous speedy little camera of M43 !
http://www.yanturcotte.com
Like to see u4/3 cameras in the hands of pros – makes me know what _could_ be done with my tools 🙂
So as you now see I am not an Olympus employee. Just a satisfied customer.
Hi, two questions, what lens was it you were using that gave that sharp image? And what do you use for lighting at weddings to go with your m43 setup?
My favorite lenses are the Oly 75mm, 1.8, Oly 45 1.8. Panasonic 20mm 1.7 and the Olympus 14-150mm for most of my shooting. I love natural lighting especially for weddings and the fast primes deliver even in low light. As far as lighting I have a couple flashes with me and that’s it. I have the OMD EM1 with the 14-150 and the Oly FL-50 flash to cover the gambit, and an EM5 with a prime lens to cover the natural lighting at weddings. Yes, that’s what I use and yes the results have been stellar! From dark cathedrals to well lit reception centers I always get the amazing results I want. Hope that helps!
Thanks. I’m currently selling off my Canon crop equipment to raise money for a switch to m43 for Christmas. I mostly just use natural light too, but would like to know that Olympus has flash covered if I want to add that. Currently planning to get an E-P5. If I buy an OLympus external flash, will I be able to hold that flash anywhere and have the E-P5 trigger it wirelessly, do you know?
My only two concerns with moving to m43 are that I like Canon colours, and Olympus colours can be nice but sometimes seem a bit inaccurate. But I believe that colours can be adjusted in camera to make new profiles if necessary. Other thing is I do like shallow depth of field sometimes. If the native m43 lenses can’t give enough I’m thinking about eventually getting an FD-m43 metabones adapter plus a f1.4 FD lens, for an f1.0 solution around $500.
Also I really wish I knew if the Panasonic 100-300mm was as good as (or better) than my Canon 55-250mm which is actually really quite good.
I think you will be very very surprised at the depth of field you get with the prime lenses! Olympus is known for having some of the truest to life jpeg renderings out of any camera company. The RAW files are beyond superb to work with too! I think you will actually love the vibrant images you will get right out of camera and the color you like is only a tweak away. In fact the color wheel on the EM1 is so much fun to work with. Amazing color changes on the go.
If you want to trigger flash on mft remotely you have 2 options.
1. Olympus rc that is not radio controlled but optically controlled with small blinks from the flash unit on the camera. For this you will need visibility with the remote flash. Olympus RC only works with the supplementary flash given for your camera or olympus FL 600 flash unit. This way you can have ttl but of course you will have to adapt to olympus system.
2. You can trigger your flashes with radio triggers like cactus v5 but the remote flash must be set up manually, no ttl.
Just want to add that FL-600R can be use as trigger (master) only in OMD, no on PEN, as I sadly find out.
On the other hand, RC suports 1/4000 FP sync on my E-PL5
Do you mean that the E-P5 can’t remotely trigger the FL-600R external flash, even using optical (small flash) to trigger it? Is there any external flash it can trigger?
E-PL5 with the default small flash fires my fl-600r and two fl-300R as a charm.
If I plug FL-600R on E-PL5, it doesn’t fire other flashes. If you plug FL-600r on OMD-EM5, it’ll fire other flashes
OK, I don’t think I particularly need to mount a flash on the camera and fire it as well as slaves. However, being able to trigger an external flash which is being handheld by someone away from the camera would be nice. The E-P5 should do that, then, right? But it has to do a small onboard flash to trigger it, and the external flash has to be close enough to detect the onboard flash, right? Are there no radio or even infrared triggers built into the E-P5?
There are no radio control, flash need to see camera. FL-600R has a blinking light for you to enssure sight line. By the way, I crafted a workaround to turn off this blinking light without tape use nor disassemble the flash unit, just software. I’ve to make a video.
I’ve tried indoor 10 meters, outdoor (a terrace) 12 meters, only miss fire when running low on batteries.
You can rotate FL-600R head so the light receiver is pointing to you and flash torch pointing to your subject.
In your camera, when enter in RC flash menu, there is an icon in the middle right of the screen, it is a camera and signal, posible values lo/mid/hi. It represents de intensity of de on-camera flash. Set it according to your subject proximity and flashes distance to camera. Set to Lo for macro -so the fhash control signal light won’t affect your subject- Set Hi for distant subject/remote flash set up.
thank you!
Before I forget, the Oly 75mm 1.8 is the best lens I have used on any platform. The images are so razor sharp and the bokeh is unreal. I had to send back 3 Nikons due to back focus issues which is actually what turned me on to micro 43. Never ever a back focus issue and my goodness the focus system is fast!
Even when I’m at home, and size is not important, I still find myself grabbing my E-P5 and not my D7000 because the AF is faster and more accurate.
The automatic eye-detection AF is priceless!
HAHAHAHA!!!!! Highly Dope Renderings.
Gold.
Would have enjoyed the video more if it had been a serious head to head comparison contest. Even if they had taken photos of the same scene it would have been better. Still, it was a bit of fun.
“serious head to head comparison”
But it was. You have to get there. You have to be ready. Looking at the sharpness of an image does not a photo make.
no it wasn’t serious in any way. the Nikon guy did get there. there was no place the girl walked to that he didn’t as well (although he was more tired). it wasn’t a fair or serious comparison in any way. even in the forest he used a tripod and she didn’t, that’s why he missed the shot. it didn’t once show the same scene photographed by the two different cameras. I don’t like to be negative about some one else’s work but I agree with the comments saying this video could have been a lot more interesting and informative.
That is why they said it may be the last review they do. There are plenty (read too many) pixel peeping reviews out there, it is nice to have some fun. It is reality when you see the number of people who start carrying heavy gear well above their skill level, who are losing the joy of photography because they just don’t carry their cameras round with them.
The number of amateur photographers in my circle who are excited about and buying into the m43 system is growing and the number of amateur people buying DSLR is diminishing, primarily because of the quality of photos coming out of the m43 system photographers. Before if I talked about Olympus nobody knew about it, since the OM-D came out a lot of people know about it, and waiting for my E-M1 to arrive to have a look at. And most of them are Panasonic so it’s not an Olympus fanboy club.
Things I would rather have seen in the video: seeing if the EM-1 could reproduce 95+% of any photos the D4 took (not necessarily pixel peeping, just reproduce the look); contrasting the reactions of people when the two different cameras were used to shoot them on the streets or wherever (seeing the reactions when a big camera is put in their face compared to a smaller one); seeing if both cameras were allowed into various buildings, or if the D4 got denied but the EM-1 was let thru; seeing how long it took to get a shot with each camera including walking time, setup time, lens preparation, shoot, dissemble, etc. All they really did was show that the D4 was heavier and so more tiring to carry, plus that it costs more. I don’t know what those separate photos at the start were supposed to show. Showing the D4 being heavier was all they did.
It wasn’t a serious review because you cannot compare them together. They are both professional products in their category but you cannot match the D4 with the EM1 in terms of IQ or glasses. The key is that you can make good enough quality pictures with the OMD.
Just want to add that FL-600R can be use as trigger (master) only in OMD, no on PEN, as I sadly find out.
On the other hand, RC suports 1/4000 FP sync on my E-PL5
my mistake,wrong reply, sorry
“you cannot match the D4 with the EM1 in terms of IQ or glasses”
Have you tested Olympus SHG lenses? I don’t know if Nikon have anything better than them, but I don’t think so.
Sorry I meant that there are some holes in the m4/3 line up. 4/3 lens line up is good but i wouldn’t buy them as new for the m4/3 system. As much as i like my olympus i know that it isn’t an FF nikon, but it can come close in the everyday use that is enough for many of us. I wanted to be fair with AW so he knows the pros and cons of this nice system.
OK they also showed how long it took for the D4 guy to change a lens, but didn’t bother doing the same trial for the EM-1. Not that changing lenses should differ much in time anyway, so I don’t know why they did that time counter. It was all just a bit of fun, but could have been a lot more interesting.
Having not a Nikon D4 but a just D700, I can say this is totally true. Haha
I really wish that had gone on longer. as much as wandering around being a dickhead with my gx1 is what roughly 100% of my photography is, it’s not really clear what the video was trying to say to me and other people
Its saying if you had the D4 you would not look like a dickhead. Reason, you would be to tired to wander around with it. Or you would leave it at home like the vast majority of DSLR users. So you can be a photographic dickhead with pix to prove it. Or you can have a big DSLR and Dxo charts on the wall but no photos.
oh reallly just shoot in low light or sports
Well, when I’m shooting sports in low light I’ll get a dSLR, though it will probably be an APSC one for the extra reach.
And when I’m shooting studio product photography I’ll get a phase one.
Oh wait. I’ve never done any of those.
I guess I’ll just stick to my m43 bodies them.
Did ok the other day – fading light football with the 100-300mm panasonic and the ep1… did not find AF tracking an issue – more me trying to track the game with a 600mm equiv lens was the issue! – ok could have done with some F4 glass or another stop of ISO (I dont go above 1600 on pen)… apart from that it works very well for sports… Also had a good shoot at the IOM TT races… did not find AF much of a hinderance, tracking might have been nice but not essential at all.
Broken record is you, nub.
Funny, but they really needed to use the 35-100 and 7-14 as well to show a better example of the lens size difference. I also agree they should have done and shown the results of shooting the same scene.
@Mark James
I agree Mark, after I watched this clip I thought the idea for this video had so much potential but they weren’t even close to realising it.
So many points could’ve been nailed by simply allowing visual comparisons of lenses and images taken.
I ordered EM-1 and 12-40mm 2 weeks ago at B&H. Still have no sign of shipment … *SOB*
So I can sell my Nikon D600 and few lenses. Much prefer to travel 1/2 weight.
Seriously, who shoots everything in burst mode? (Answer: people who have all day to delete pictures!)
Good video nonetheless.
I noticed that too. It’s like he turned it on to show it and never turned it off.
I shoot in 3s as I find with the EP1 the IS might be slightly better on shot 2 or 3 so take 3 to garentee I have a razor sharp image in there… somtimes the 1st is not quite as sharp (of course somtimes its the sharpest)!
While the video is funny, those who are not “up with the lingo” will get moderately confused with some of the misinformation it delivered (HDR = Highly Dope Rendering). As a photography instructor, this irks me.
The “High Dope Rendering” was a sort of joke. In this context – dope means something really good.
She was being amusingly playful with the language.
In this case , I prefer her misinformation instead of the actual meaning of it.
There is a very large review in Russian of the E-M1 (hi-tech dot mail dot ru) which praises the camera but notes the unreasonably high price of the machine and, most importantly, that auto-focusing with 43 lenses is far from satisfactory. Especially sad for me personally is the circumstance, established by the reviewer, that the E-M1 does not auto-focus well the 12-60 – something that would otherwise be the main reason to try the new thing. I am not buying, sorry Olympus! The two E-520 and the E-600 that I have auto-focus and work perfectly in good light. And I will be thinking of Sony FF and Pentax K3.
With the latest micro four thirds cameras you are paying the latest and most exciting technologies. If you are using contrast focus based four thirds lenses with an E-M1 you will have excellent pperformance if your using PDAF lenses it should be good enough…
“With the latest micro four thirds cameras you are paying the latest and most exciting technologies” …. etc.
This sounds like an Olympus official speaking. And it is worth asking one:
– which exactly are “the latest and most exciting technologies”? The 5-axis IBIS is not. The Sony sensor – that has almost 25% lower ISO capacity than the E-PM2 costing four times less – is not. The weather sealing is not. Where can the latest technology be identified, so that a purchase can be justified?
– How could Pentax offer “the latest technologies” two years ago and sell them now (cf. Pentax K3/K01) for three times less in bodies that have a sensor with a much higher capacity?
– why does the E-M1 not auto-focus 43 lenses well, in spite of the promises (as found by dpreview)?
– why does the E-M1 not auto-focus 43 lenses well and especially the 12-60 (as found by the Russian reviewer, see above), the most versatile and commonly used 43 lens?
We, 43 owners, have been asking questions for years now and there is no reason not to continue asking them.
Because at the moment it’s not possible. But I actually found neither the 12-60 or 50-200 not too bad for focusing. Not as good as the m43 admittedly. It was more the weight that put me off, and the knowledge from 20 years in life sciences that miniaturization is the way to go. So I sold them 4 months ago.
“Knowledge from 20 years in life sciences that miniaturization is the way to go”??? Does this mean that we need to change our habits and start to live in increasingly smaller houses? And drive increasingly smaller cars? Seriously, I like mFT for primes but, as far as the bulky 12-60 is concerned, I wouldn’t change it for the smaller 12-40 and would like to use it on a DSLR. On a PEN it is big and inconvenient to handle. Not, probably, on E-M1. But the E-M1 has a DSLR bulk and weight anyway. 🙂 And, what is more, the E-M1 does not auto-focus the 12-60 well, they say ….
As somebody who has a scientific background you must be aware of sample veriation.
The 25% (quarter stop) improvement at high ISO in the EPM2 tested by DXO is almost certainly sample variation.
DXO themselves say that anything around a third of a stop or less difference is effectively the same.
Quite simply sensor technology has reached a plateau and until the next big breakthrough comes along (organic sensors?) then you are not going to get any significant improvement in sensor performance.
“The 25% (quarter stop) improvement at high ISO in the EPM2 tested by DXO is almost certainly sample variation.”
(1) “Sample variation” of 25% is NOT observed in the four Pentax cameras with the same sensor: Pentax K 01, Pentax K-30, Pentax K-50 and Pentax K-500, see their results at DXoMark. Sample variation in high ISO in these FOUR cameras amounts to about 1%!!!!! (One percent!)
(2) If we take it that there is a 25% improvement at high ISO of E-PM2 over E-M1 due to “sample variation”, then it would be justified to claim that a 25% loss of ISO sensor capacity in the form of sample variation from E-M1 to E-520 brings the sensor of E-520 on a par with that of E-PM2. I know from personal experience that the difference between the two in ISO capacity is HUGE. I have both cameras: E-520 and E-PM2.
The DXoMark results from the four Pentax cameras shows that sample sample variation is generally in the amount of approximately 1%. OK, let it be 5%. But 25% sample variation – this is simply Oly E-M1 fanboy wishful thinking.
Go ahead, use dxo measurements but ignore the things dxo says about those measurements.
Or better yet, go ahead and buy that pentax you are after, go out and take pictures with it.
All right, whether I buy a Pentax or not – I may, in spite of being heavily invested in 43 and m43, to me the E-M1 is not a reasonable purchase. The first PEN, that, unlike the E-M1, was indeed revolutionary, had an initial price of 750 euro. I bought one second-hand like new for 150 euro two years after its launching. I expect a similar development here – and looking forward to it 🙂
You predetermined that you must have a DSLR, and are cherry-picking things to only see those arguments that might confirm your position, ignoring everything else.
So the solution is really simple, stop justifying your own choice to the rest of the world (we don’t care, its none of our business) and instead just follow your hearts desire.
Just stop pretending that you are making a reasoned argument please.
mmm – still think m43 is the future despite any quibbles that may need addressing!
Have no Idea what you might expect EM1 focus to be like but even the EP3 without PDAF support will focu the 12-60mm quite nicely in CDAF mode… so I do expect the EM1 to work well enough with the 12-60mm… I bet I would not complain if I had that combo, dont think I would have any excuse for not getting the image with that setup!
EP3 with 12-60mm 43 lens focusing respectably fast!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JR6dP7fQXRI
Sorry, don’t have enough time now, will react later. Only want to say that I have E-PM2, next generation after ep3. E-PM2 DOESN’T focus the 12-60 well. However, the 11-22 is OK if one uses the touch screen facility. 70-300 is also acceptable on E-PM2. But not 12-60.
I have tested the E-M1 with my 150/2.0 and the E-M1 focus it atleast as well as my E-3 does, if not a bit better. Still to test, are 50/2.0, 70-300 and 40-150, EC20 and EX25. I hope I have time to test those this weekend.
Why do you keep building arguments on things like:
“- why does the E-M1 not auto-focus 43 lenses well, in spite of the promises (as found by dpreview)?”
Actually, they qualified that statement after their initial review, maybe you should just go back and read again?
“- why does the E-M1 not auto-focus 43 lenses well and especially the 12-60 (as found by the Russian reviewer, see above), the most versatile and commonly used 43 lens?”
Oh, the 50-200 wants to have a word with that. Also funny how many people who actually tried don’t seem to agree with that qualification.
“that has almost 25% lower ISO capacity than the E-PM2 costing four times less ”
People have pointed you at sample variation repeatedly, DXO actually mentions it as well, they also say something about the meaning of such differences.
You only read what you want to hear, and ignore anything inconvenient, that is not a way to build any kind of argument, that is sticking your fingers in your ears and going “nananana I can’t heaaaaaaaaaaar you!”
The E-M1 doesn’t work well with the 12-60? Dpreview says so about 43 lenses??
—
“Everyone” knows that dpreview *first* reported slow focus of 43 lenses on the E-M1 compared to the E-5 — and then admitted a couple of days later that that was based on a distant recollection of the E-5, and not based on a scientific test. Everyone except you, apparently. Other people, e.g Robin Wong who has been an active user of the E-5 until he made his review, have stated that the AF speed of 43 lenses on the E-M1 is comparable to when used on the E-5.
—
“Everyone” (except you?) also knows that the AF speed of 43 lenses vary depending on the quality of the servo motors, etc. You find the same in other brands. E.g the Nikkor 70-300 has a horrible AF compared to the Nikkor 24-70/2.8. Yet the Nikkor 24-70/2.8 probably has similar AF speed on the D300 aa the 12-60 has on the E-M1. And most m43 lenses have *much* faster AF on the E-M1 again… (But not all! The mZuiko 75-300 has slow AF on the E-M5 — but still fast compared to the Nikkor 70-300 on a D300…)
—
Anyway, your claim of poor performance of 43 lenses on the E-M1 is highly speculative.
I think you should read these reviews before jumping to that conclusion.
The E-M1 absolutely works with native 4/3 lenses, and is barely a tad after the E-5 in AF speed with those immaculate lenses. And if any niggles at all, they will probably be corrected in the next fw update. Read the experiences described here:
http://biofos.com/mft/omd_em1_prelim_tst.html
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/olympus-e-m1/olympus-e-m1A.HTM
@Tito
You would be surprised at the amount of “professional” DSLR shooters that abuse burst mode and bracketing….
Burst mode is handy for grandchildren. 1 in a thousand may show no movement.
Yes, grandchildren & also dogs. 🙂
A very refreshing comparison (even if not scientific with charts and graphs).
And speaking on the E-M1, does anybody tested it with the Panasonic 14-50 F2.8-3.5 (Elmarit)?
It’s a great lens, but awfully slow on the Panasonic GX1, unless you go the manual focus route.
I couldn’t find any reference on that across the web.
Thanks in advance.
Jankoff, don’t read a review, go and try it yourself! I have the EM1 and 12-60 4/3rds lens and it focusses excellently in good light and fine in low light but don’t take my word for it try it out yourself, that’s what I did. I don’t make decisions on cameras on reviews alone, they are a guide, I make a decisions once I have handled them and gone through a series pre determined tests, taking the reviews into consideration. If the cameras feels good in the hand (and the EM1 does) and the cameras does what I need it to do, then I will consider buying. Take you 12-60 along and give it a try.
Hmm… 😀
http://camerasize.com/compare/#482,229
Until you try the top view…. 😉
+ 3
Shhhhhhhh don’t tell anyone 😛
http://www.digitalversus.com/digital-camera/olympus-om-d-e-m1-p17220/test.html
cons:
Cons
Battery life could be better
Menus can be complicated
No sweep panorama !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Stabiliser is noisy
No silent shooting mode
Video mode is quite limited
The HDR mode is silent – so just set it to RAW + Jpg and use the RAW and you’ve got your silent mode.
So there were no “pros”? No-one thinks that the E-M1 ia perfect! E.g the SD card “door” seems “plastic”/fragile, the covers for the flash shoe etc “complicated”, etc. But he who only sees pros or cons appear as one-eyed into the absurd.
Yes, using a D4 for vacations is over the top. Lets put things into perspective though. There are people making a living using cameras such as these. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Also, would you be upset if the serious compact forum posted countless info on how silly 4/3 users are for buying into the system when you can get pretty close image quality with a current 1 inch sensor. The truth is. This is a hobby for most people. Their photos will be taken home, placed on a hard drive and shared with a few people. Does it really matter? Is the world going to be a better place because of your photo of your cats eyeball is a tad better than the next persons cats eyeball? get over it. If someone wants to use a certain camera it’s no skin off of my back.