sean000: Consumer advocacy... one more reason to love this website.
I'm still waiting on my E-M5 to arrive, but the 20mm f/1.7 has been my favorite lens for the GF1 since I bought it in January of 2010... and I'd hate to have to choose between it and the new camera.
I notice they don't specifically say how low an ISO one needs to avoid the problem, but from what people have posted here that is variable. For some it starts happening at 1600, others at 3200 or higher. I don't know if it will be an issue for me, but it's nice to know they are working on a solution.
Don't want to choose, then keep both.
miwo76: I always found it weird that m43 lenses have updateable firmware. I bet this will be fixed by a firmware update to the 20mm f/1.7.
Oly and Panny will BOTH benefit from a fix for this.
It's a record! A NEW camera that ONLY bands above 6400 with ONE lens.
Others should do so well...
Tim F 101: At least it is only the one lens that every m4/3 user owns.
I don't own it either - that 1.4 is tempting
Nathebeach: Or maybe, we are just dealing with an extreme design of a small sensor, a small lens, extreme ISO's. Can't have it all. Everything is a trade off in life. Of course I am probably completely wrong but it does make me wonder. Reading that some of the EOS lenses had a similar problem kind of blows my theory out of the water. Still it raises the question, in the pursuit of smallest fastest sharpest everything, at what point do we say "this is good enough?"
Case in point: I am looking at the 19mm Sigma MFT vs the 20mm Panasonic. While I would prefer the Panny (who wouldn't) I could see myself being very happy with the "bulky" 19mm Sigma which seems to be almost as good with the exception of a fast F stop. I just can't justify the extra dough. I guess if you have the dough for the new OM-D though then this does not apply to you.
For what it can achieve, I think the EM-5 is very cheap. Yes I have one.
chiane: Am I the only one that doesn't want a camera that looks like it's from the '70's?
It is a VERY nice camera to hold ... UNLIKE many of the HUGE cameras of today. Good on them for getting back to basics - where it counts.
javafool: I'm from the 60's and 70's so it's kinda like looking in the mirror. I hope they fix the banding issue but I normally don't shoot high ISO anyway. The Panasonic 20mm is a fantastic lens. It looks nice on my silver OM-D.
Enjoy it mate, regardless of what uninformed trolls say.
fooddudeone: What about IBIS to work in Video-Mode with adapted and non-native lenses?????
IBIS works for Stills with adapted lenses.... why not video??????
Olympus needs to fix this issue first! There's many more people using and there are more adapted non-native lenses out there, than a single 20mm pancake.
And, native lens sales isn't the reason...since IBIS + Adapted lenses works with stills! And, this 20mm isn't even an Olympus lens! It's a Panasonic lens! So, I highly doubt Olympus' reason for not fixing IBIS-Video for adapted lenses isn't just to boost their native lens sales.
They just 'might' be able to afford a TRIPOD?
Hand-held video is almost universally C R A P
On my E-M5 I have had the banding once with the 20mm at iso 6400. I have not seen it at iso 3200 and I do shoot a fair bit at that sensitivity.
These are complex electronic devices, not the simple mechanical ones of old. The occasional glitch is hardly surprising.
and WHO else makes their IBIS work with other lenses - AT ALL????
fooddudeone: Banding? 20mm? ONE lens??? Who cares!!!!
Let's try the hundreds, thousands, of old & new, vintage & modern, adapted non-native MF lenses that don't have IBIS in Video-Mode!
Hmmm.... ONE Pana 20mm???
...Or, the myriad of lenses by Leica, Canon, Nikon, Voigtlander, Zeiss, Contax, Olympus Legacy, SLR and RF lenses, M39, M49, LTM, old Russian primes like the Helios, Yaschica, Minolta, and the list goes on and on............
Spot on - a troll's storm in a teacup ..
ProfHankD: What a strange problem to be lens specific!
The "banding" I've seen in postings is really pretty straightforward-looking single-pixel lines with consistently wrong color -- easy to recognize and fix. Actually, much easier to fix than the Fuji X10 "white orbs" problem that my free DeOrbIt tool fixed... but I didn't get all that positive a response to doing that work for the community, so I'm not rushing to put a post-processing fix up for this technically less challenging (and less publishable as research) defect.
Olympus should be able to fix this pretty easily as a post-processing step when the 20mm Panasonic lens is detected, but I'd guess they're trying to fix it at the cause, and that's probably some lens-induced electrical glitch disturbing sensor readout. Really impressive that Olympus cares at all about a problem that happens only with another company's lens.... :)
Yes, can you imagine CaNikSon caring ONE iota about a Tokina lens' performance on their bodies?
Their answer will be "get a CaNikSon lens, sonny".
makeitworst: The days of responsible engineering at Olympus that produced wonderful top of the industry film cameras in the OM series is long over. I still cherish my early 70's OM-1 and OM-1MD, and my other OM-1N and OM-2N.
But since entering the Digital market, Olympus has repeatedly stumbled, often big time, with cameras that were seriously flawed by Engineering. I had (have but it's dead) an Oly E-10 DSLR, which for the time was a wonderful camera even though it had a fixed lens, because that lens was tremendously versatile and accurate. BUT it had a flawed Battery Circuit board designed that failed every two years like clock-work (Oly paid to fix it once, I paid the second time), then the AF circuit kicked the bucket at age 5. That's BS, even a DSLR should last as long as a Film SLR. ONLY recent Oly I loved is the C-7000. Spot on colors, a range-finder, great video recording, fast lens and it still works .. so far.
Sorry Oly, no buyer here till you get your Engineering chit together.
Better TRY an EM-5. I think you'll find Oly has its Mojo again.
photohounds: I read the nonsense about 85mm being 'perfect' belowI always used a 100 or 135 in the 35mm days to produce quality, saleable work.
So I just had to have a play with a zoom, set to 75mm.
One metre for face shots, and about 2 metres for a waist up.
Wide open to f2,5 it looks like there will be sufficient DOF to make a saleable portrait, with nice OOF bokeh.
Those 85mm/f1,2 face shots with the disappearing ears and only one eyelash in focus? Good luck selling them to your customers - most of mine prefer NOT to look idiotic.
If bragging to me that you can have less DOF than me is important to you, or you have some real need for that wafer thin DOF so be it.
Gear should be about balance and photographically this lens focal length looks about right. Brightening up a dark image or a stopped down preview? Even Exposure compensation can be seen. Priceless!
I'll bet the E-7 will have an EVF too.
No problem with a 1.2 lens but a face portrait taken with such a lens is rarely liked by the subject.
This type of lens, wide open (or nearly so) will work well with what looks like very smooth bokeh, in spite of the negative comments posted about it by people who have never tried it and will never try it.
I read the nonsense about 85mm being 'perfect' belowI always used a 100 or 135 in the 35mm days to produce quality, saleable work.
Works brilliantly ... Grip is fantastic - adds just the right weight, 'holdability' and tripod mech clearance, even for pano heads.
Tried a couple of OM lenses - 50 and 135 - IS works perfectly.
I also want to try the $25 focus confirm adapters ....
The EVF is just great. See what you are shooting in VERY dim light, IS is excellent - one you learn that the fan-sound is OK. 100% coverage too.
I got the 2 dinky lenses as walk-arounds. The wider one is better than it has any right to be for the price.
My 50/2 is still a cantankerous focusser (surprise).However, grab the focus dial and it instantly magnifies for EXTREMELY quick and easy manual focus.
This is a picture-making tool par excellance.
If it doesn't pay for itself faster than any previous camera, I'll eat my hat.
Spectacle99: Another great review, and all kinds of great responses here. I still have two questions, though. First one in this post, second to follow:
1) Buffer size/continuous performance: how precisely does the camera perform in continuous shooting mode? I understand the details about max 9 fps, and only up to 4 fps for continuous autofocus. But HOW MANY shots can you take in these modes before the camera slows down? And this is crucial: does it just SLOW DOWN, or does it STOP altogether and then you have to wait for all of the photos to save on the card before you can resume shooting?
Get a 95 MB/x card like a Sandisk extreme pro. Problem solved (for me) :-)
Spectacle99: My second question:
2) Bokeh and shallow depth of field: I am considering getting this camera instead of an enthusiast DSLR, given its small size. But the one thing that concerns me is the sensor size here. I've seen all of the details and examples above, and it is clear that the OM-D does just as well as or better than its mirrorless and APS-C rivals all the way up through high ISOs. But what about depth of field? Amongst many other things, I want to be able to shoot nice flower and insect macros with a very shallow DOF, and a smooth, creamy bokeh background. Same thing, but less extreme, with portraits. How possible is this with this camera? And do you have any lens suggestions?
This lens DOES AF on the EM-5 (well mine does), but hunts a bit. For macro MF and move the cam is the common way of operating. Bokeh is creamy smooth ...
rjajr: Just downloaded and tried it for about two minutes... I'll be sticking with Lightroom.
Two minutes - MORE than enough to evaluate a piece of software. The image processing speed will save you a thousand times that over a year if you are more than a dabbler.
Used it on Win/Lin and sometimes mac since long before adobe even had a workflow tool. Bibble's maturity shows in the hands of someone with a little skill, but some might have to spend ANOTHER two minutes reading the manual ....
I hope Corel don't bollox up a good thing.
I use an E3 among other things - no moire here - are you sure it isn't a video card artifact? I can see it non full size screen images sometimes - but NEVER in full size or in file output - or in any print.
a moire "issue" is Non sequitur - check your video drivers or card and the output.
harley13: Lens shade not, camera retro hmmm...otherwise cool
You can buy a lens hood for $5 ..
I used OMs for weddings for decades. Often (where flash was off) the people were not even aware I had shot ANY photos - even in a church!
They were used to the loud "click-clack" from the other 'big 4' makers products. That velvety smoothness also made better hand-held shots in low light due to less camera shake.
Other photogs at the, time used to argue that a quieter and smoother shutter made no difference. They were just defending 'their' brand against the available evidence.
40 years later, nothing's changed. I loved the quietness of the E-1 and it is still in the family.
The EP-1 (et al.) are not dissimilar in size/weight to an OM-1.
Interesting to see what mechanicals they can cram into the available space ... loved my OM cameras ... 1,2,4,2000,10,20,30 and 40 at various times. Some were known as OM-F and OM-G etc in US.