It does work for landscape orientation photos, but doesn't work too well for portrait orientation photos. Still, it's a nice upgrade. My photos are meant to be viewed super size, and I appreciate Flickr makes my photos look better now.
I just wish in the photostream view will be upgraded to "justified view."
Congrats! :-) Nice photo.
They Stole My Idea ! ! !
Though my original plan is to implement a B&W only camera, but I would allow people to extract the color version if they shot RAW.
Now I hope Kodak doesn't steal my idea of making film-specific camera.... Wait, Kodak doesn't make digital camera anymore.
Nice article. :-) Very insightful and very helpful to everyone. It's something everyone should at least think about when they take photos.
I think stopped caring my audience though. :-( They're a diverse group of people. If I satisfied everyone, I would stop having fun taking photos and might get too frustrated when someone doesn't like them, which is something to think about also: it is totally okay if someone doesn't like your photos....
Yes, 17mm remake.... 35mm equivalent focal length is a very useful, and it's a shame 17mm f/2.8 was so awful I returned the entire E-P2 kit. The speed issue is not as important as IQ to me.
25mm f/1.4 Leica is already an option, so if you need one that is the one to get. No need for another 24mm f/1.8 (inexpensive option for that focal length is Panasonic 20mm f/1.7).
citizenlouie: I wonder what's the point of using larger aperture to achieve DoF. Probably FF will eventually phase out....
I was being sarcastic. You can already do this with photoshop but you need to shoot two photos. One with the background completely out of focus and another with the foreground in sharp focus and merge two photos. It's a big hassle. For action shot like the dog, it probably is not that easy (but not undoable). This looks like an "automate" function. For macro, we can already do extended DoF by merge/stack several shots. Software solution for shallow DoF probably be inferior (actually all software solution is inferior than optical), but depends on what your needs and your threshold for quality, it can be helpful sometimes, if you don't mind compromise.
I wonder what's the point of using larger aperture to achieve DoF. Probably FF will eventually phase out....
veroman: I can't help but wonder why anybody thinks they can judge a camera's real-world performance by viewing images ... 100% or otherwise ... on the web. When all is said and done, the OM-D E-M5 is a somewhat better M4:3 camera than its predecessors,but not by much, I'm afraid.
Truth is, it's highly doubtful anyone will see real, palpable differences between this new camera and the E-P3 or E-P2 for that matter when printed to even large sizes.
No, what the OM-D is all about ... as with so many products these days ... is its body design, and I happen to like it ... being an old guy from the film era. Underneath the skin, though, it's yet another M4:3 camera ... and apparently a good one. But it's no Nikon D7000/Pentax K-5/Canon 5D beater. How could it be?
Don't forget about handling and the lens you use with the camera. Your result may not be the same as DPR's because your shooting style is different.
razorfish: How sad to see all these fanboys of other brands badmouthing Olympus products. I never see this happening when Canon/Nikon/Sony products are tested. Clearly a four thirds sensor performing well brings out some kind of inferiority complex in these people.
You're not wrong about your analysis, but it's the same argument why Olympus says 12-bit is enough. The reason is (*drum rolls please*) a typical LCD monitor people use are 8-bit only. Most people, won't notice any IQ difference between RAW and JPEGs (with very low compression) unless they use a professional monitor, which specifically states it has 10-bit process engine and wide-gamut (97% sRGB and up..., yes, even pro models may not have 100% sRGB gamut, let alone AdobeRGB gamut). I rarely see any monitor that has 12-bit process nor 14-bit ones (those can cost $1,000+).
Most people usually capture their photos in 72dpi, which is fine enough for LCD monitor, but not print quality 300dpi. I really think this subject is really moot point for most casual photographers.
Pete_Murrell: I have only one question that may not be answerable by people in this forum however I will ask it anyway.I currently use 4/3rds stuff and obviously I love it. I was just wondering if anyone has heard rumours about Olympus releasing a camera with this sensor in the 4/3 lens mount range (Maybe an E-6 or 7)? ... because I can't see myself investing in a whole new range of lenses but based on this small snippet, this sensor is pretty special. Fingers crossed. Can't wait for the full review.
If I remember it correctly, 4/3 system uses 7 contact pins, and m4/3 uses 9. Two more pins are for CDAF, and that's the AF system that's been vastly improved in latest m4/3 models. They could try to miniaturize the current SHG glasses and adds CDAF mechnism to it, but many people already said before (in other sites), it's quite difficult to make SHGs smaller than they already are, though they are by no means small, and they are pretty darn heavy (because of the level of complexity in design and super large aperture). I don't see size conscious m4/3 users would be interested in such heavy glasses, even if they can make them smaller.
brkl: That's pretty remarkable. As good as the best of APS-C it seems.
I hope both of you and Hen3ry realize, I am not talking about color temperature (I use a gray card, so that's negligible), color saturation, direction of shadow and some such, I mean stuff that you will notice when you pixel peep, like detail, noise level, some stuff that makes your photo extra sharp, rather than aesthetic appeals, which can be done with any type of camera if done right. Aesthetic appeal is a subjective measure, which using it to judge the quality of the sensor, which is the main topic we are talking about, is unfair, don't you think so?
bydloman: Is there a button or a way to shut down the screen without using the sensor on the viewfinder?
Does it saves battery too?
Short answer, no. (If I understand you correctly)
The reason is what you see in EVF is exactly the same from LCD, they are both from the image sensor. When you shot off sensor, you shut off metering also. Digital camera is all revolving around sensor. You can save battery by using EVF only, since it's a smaller screen than the back screen. Now I might want to take that back. Since E-M5's LiveView screen is actually AMOLED screen, which is a technology that draws less power per square inch. But since that back screen is much larger than the LCD in the EVF, so I am not entirely sure. We need to see a test result of that. Maybe DPR or some other site will make a test of that.
EVF is not OVF. What you see from OVF is through the lens (TTL), EVF is through the sensor.... It means what you see in EVF is what you're going to get in the final photo.
Antony John: Test samples not available:DPReview, just a thought but I guess that you are running multiple servers. Just wondering if all the secondary servers are being correctly updated from the primary one?Strange that some have no problems with access to the test samples whilst the 'Standalone Comparison Tool' that I can get to work has no E-M5 listed in the camera database.
It might be the browser setting. Just a guess....
Dick Sanders: IMPORTANT QUESTION: Will someone who has actually used this camera please tell us how far into the zoom range the lens stays at f2.8, and then at which focal length it switches to f3.5, and at which focal length to f4 or 4.5, and finally at what point it maxes out at f5.8 (is it at 112 or sooner?). Can we get f2.8 at 35mm, for instance, and can we get f4 at 80 or 85mm? Thanks!
I just check the image results, and I think I like the IQ so far for what it is (an advanced P&S super zoom). The placement of buttons and dials are also very nice. Swivel screen is a major plus. Looks like Canon does a good job on handling point of view.
However, I raised the same question Dick Sanders mentioned, and now you post it.... It looks like a very deep aperture schedule and it hits f/5.8 fairly early at 85mm.... Feels like it's competing against a P&S more than a mirrorless contender (but of course, the IQ is much better than all current P&S's).
Try shooting with 4/3 sensors for a few years and shoot maybe 5000 photos per year and see if I am wrong about this. This came from experience of shooting that many photos for two and some years, with each scene shot bracketed for half dozen shots, and some shots have been shot at different times of the year with various lighting condition, so I know how to squeeze the most detail out of 4/3 sensor. I also shoot film (35mm), so I know exactly why some photography books suggest why one should shoot in some lighting condition and that method truly works for 35mm film (FF). But when it comes to 4/3 sensor, sorry, you have to push the shooting time 1-2 hours back in the morning. Don't just reject it down right. Keep an open mind and try it and see if I am wrong about this.
manmachine242: ISO3200:NEX5n: 1/800, f87D: 1/640, f9E-M5: 1/800 f6.3
ISO200:NEX5n: 1/50 f87D: 1/40 f9E-M5: 1/50 f6.3G3: 1/80 f6.3
The difference is consistently 2/3 EV.
real sensitivity of E-M5 at ISO200 = ISO125 on 7D, NEX5n, G3real sensitivity of E-M5 at ISO3200 = ISO2000 on 7D, NEX5n
This is a perfect example why I mentioned in another post that you can't simply copy photography book's technique and apply to every camera you use.
"Exposed to the right" is the correct terminology, but what you described is for negative film photography. Digital sensors is based on positive film (slide film or color reversal film, all means the same), so everything you do have to be in reverse. You want to preserve "highlight" because once it's gone, it's gone forever whenever you shoot with positive film or digital. To preserve highlight, you expose for shadow to preserve highlight. It's very confusing I know. When you shoot with negative film, you expose for highlight to preserve shadow.
That said, what you said is exactly the opposite of one should do for digital format to save dynamic range. Please refer to Wiki entry on "Zone System" for detail. There are some shortcoming for using this method. Short answer, use histogram. :-D
joes49: I'd like to know who will replace their E-3 with the new OM-D, and why...thanks!
Zuiko 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 SWD is the $1,000 challenge (US dollar). Can any camera maker make a better lens for that offering price? Unthinkable to part with it.... It's the reason I joined Olympus camp and the reason I didn't jump ship to Sony when A900 was on sale. Who can make a lens, with the same IQ, 9-blade circular aperture design, THREE ED glasses, weather proof all metal barrel, and still include lens hood, tripod collar and a very nice lens carrying case for just a little over $1,000? Crazy man!
Most likely those who don't want to carry big cameras and don't have SHG lenses. Basically, to those E-3/5 are overkill to begin with.
NZ Scott: Oly is overstating ISO - that's one reason why the results look so impressive.
The German website digitalkamera (dot) de tested the M5's ISO capabilities and concluded that it does not shoot at ISO 200-25,600, but actually at ISO 120-14,200. In other words, Oly is exaggerating by 2/3 of a stop.
What that means is that if you want to compare an M5 image shot at 3200 with an image from another camera, it is fairer to compare it with a 1600 image, assuming that the manufacturer of the other camera hasn't also told a big fib.
The Germans did find that the M5 has very good dynamic range - around 11 stops at ISO 1600, dropping to 8 stops at 25,600. Presumably the dynamic range is even better at lower ISOs.
I can't shoot handheld without IS around 1/60", but totally fine with IBIS turned on on my E-620. It's not useless.
If you use a telephoto lens, please make sure to turn the focal length section at the bottom of the screen to correspond to the focal length you're using. That is, if you used 200mm lens, change IBIS to optimize for 200mm.
There are three modes of IS with E-620 (there are more with the E-M5). IS.1 is for both horizontal and vertical shakes, which is most useful to me, as my hands shake a lot. IS.2 and IS.3 are designed for minimize noise caused by IS, so they only reduce vertical shake only (IS.2) or horizontal shake only (IS.3). To me those two modes are useless.
In high speed shots, IS does very little. IS is most useful around borderline shutter speed, that is 1/30" to 1/250". 1/250" is usually considered safe handheld shutter speed for anything under 100mm focal length.
And please don't call E-M5 "M5." That name usually refers to Leica M5.
Louis_Dobson: Comedy day from all the people who don't understand ISO! You'd expect that of course because the whole pursuit of high ISO thing is a ludicrous marketing scam, and as soon as people think rationally it all falls apart.
Now, when do we get the base ISO RAW pulls, which are what actually matter?
I'm pretty confident. You can't get high ISO results like this, irrelevant though they are to real life shooting, unless you have the read noise under control, and if you have read noise under control then you will you have good low ISO DR, and if you have good low ISO DR then this is a tool with which talented photographers can take good pictures (while talentless ones argue about high ISO).
While deliverance is quite arrogant, but the argument is valid.
The real problem is photographers are a big group of people of different foci lump together. High ISO is relevant to some groups of photogs while not so much for others. For landscapers who shot on tripods, base ISO (and dynamic range in base ISO for that matter) is far more important than high ISO noise performance. In fact, even people who call them landscapers are not all the same. Some shoot nature with available light only, some shoot urban landscape, some shoot architecture..., all of them have different requirements.
The problem is camera companies are trying to design a few cameras to fulfill as many needs as possible. How are you going to do that with limited amount of investment unless marketing tell people there is one definite way to nirvana, whether that be high ISO, bigger sensor, more pixels, better sharpness, or whatever is the next big thing?
Everything is a compromise.