Ostensibly a very good camera - except Canon made no support for the USB connection - how ridiculous is that (they made one for the Mk II)? Not a gem of a camera, it is also very heavy with battery pack and an L lens. But it really does work even if my shoulders ache at night after a full day's shoot. Teams up very well with the excellent CamRanger (except Canon's lack of USB support) (and by the way, why can't camera producers come to a sub-contracted deal with people like CamRanger to have the latter's tech built into their kit?).
As a shooter for annual and sustainability reports (think of the number of such reports are produced annually and the number of pros and the amount of kit is involved) where I fly to assignments most of the time, the bulk & weight is starting to become a real problem in respect of excess baggage costs and understandable security issues.
All said and done, this camera has contributed well towards my work. Thanks Canon.
GREAT CAMERA - with two serious flaws
Their flash units are useless in a variable location pro environment. I have to use PocketWizards + Canon 600EX_RTs (more info under the recent general Mirrorless article).
The Wifi works but the interface is really bad. Olympus should look at CamRanger's interface which is truly workable. Hey Olympus, you could do it without the clip on transmitter!
I cannot use this camera much professionally which is a real shame. Sorted in the MK II?
Otherwise, the gem of a camera and the gem lenses are great and practical - you don't have poster sized prints in annual and sustainability reports.
I fly to most assignments: compare the weight and bulk of 2 bodies + 8 lenses I typically travel with - the Olympus kit would win hands down over the Canons - particularly now when cabin baggage is becoming more and more restricted.
I bought 2 EM1s, plus kit. They're very good but ...
Reading the posts I conclude that the mirrorless/standard DLSR argument is irrelevant to the decision. It is what will get the job done. As a corporate shooter I use a Canon 5D III and a ID IV. I have dropped strobes in favour of radio controlled speed-lights 600EX-RTs cos of h&s issues, WEIGHT & security issues (airports). I also use the excellent CamRanger + iPad for art directors.
Olympus have no suitable flash and their Wifi interface is sadly pitiful. This means the EM1s are only used for 'street' and for weddings I do in summer. Very good for both.
Flash now sorted - help from PocketWizard: 600EX-RTs on Flex TT5s + an AC3 on a Mini TT1 on the camera shoe + a gusset in the shoe cut from acetate doc folder masking all but the centre contact and the lock pin recess.
Olympus, globally there are many, many pros who shoot for annual/sustainability reports. You could have a winner. All sorted with EM1 Mk II? I hope so!
He was given a second chance - as important he took it. Must have been scarey Daniel, going back, but you can't stop now. Cool pic.
In a small way, just getting into hi end wedding photography (most work is industrial/corporate). And I love it when I see someone with the nowse to try new things out for himself and then share it. Great Treavor - wish more of us were like you.I don't have a 90 - just the 17 (recommended where appropriate). However, Trevor, if you don't mind I will buy a 90 and try it out on industrial shoots where I like to occationally push the customer's brief and do something a little more interesting than just the usual generics.Refering to Cy Cheze remarks, which some some extent I have sympathy, often I am initially down when confronted by someone who doesn't appear photogenic. But that is the challenge because, anyone who is in front of the camera wants themselves to look great. So Treavor, I bet you have some great pictures of people as a result of both technical and subjective creativity which haven't relied on Photoshop's liquifying filter.
I particularly like the uncropped version with the reflection of the girl in the surface above. The 'architecture' works for me too. What incredable fun it must have been. And all professional photography should be fun ... well except the sort of photography that Don McCullin was involved with.
Photoshop et al is a great photographic development. However, there is nothing to substitute getting it right in the camera, albeit commercial revenue issues then come into play.
Giles, simply I am in awe of people, like you, who have massively suffered and yet found direction on their own to have another go. From the rebound, I wish you every strength to find your new style. Its the picture that counts so I am sure going for lighter equipment won't cramp at least your creativity. A commercial photographer who rarely faces any danger, I admire the unimaginable courage of those who face it daily. You have obviously faced more than most, come through it, only to return to finish the job which is still not without considerable risks. So we all wish you safety in your endevour, great success in your mission and a long and rewarding (for us all) career. And I look forward to buy a book based on your work in the future. Best wishes.
Jean, you've got people contributing - brilliant. Good presentation. Myself, I am very manual although sometimes I'm flawed and try others' advice. If we can't pintch each other's ideas and shape them to our own likeing, well that would be the end of art full stop.
The exciting thing about the visual arts is that the result is subjective. Some of the world's most well known photographs are hated by some - this is simply because human perception varies from one person to another. If you believe in people having different viewpoints, then they should be allowed to express them, in this case visually.
And just because you might not like a result, that doesn't mean to say that it has no value. What I find in my own results is that, while I might hate them, the customer might love them. Being commercial - that relevant.
So thanks Jean and thanks dpreview for creating this section of the site - also for not including a don't like button which would have been so negative.