rsf3127: ... The likes of Fujifilm's X-E2 will more than match the OM-D in terms of stills image quality, while the significantly less expensive Sony a6000 offers a formidable combination of image quality, video capability and autofocus tracking, which makes the E-M5 II a much less clear-cut recommendation than its predecessor was...
Very well said.
I'm not sure why everybody complains about the "plastic" - and doesn't complain about the actual handling of the Sony and Fuji cameras.
To me personally, the handling of Olys is simply magnificent: you rarely have to wait for the camera, and you can change almost anything to work the way you want.
For example A6000 ticks lots of boxes, but it is still just a mediocre camera. XE2 is a good camera overall - but very few are really happy with its retro-styled handling.
P.S. And I personally do not mind the plastic gear. In fact, I prefer it. It's lighter, it doesn't get cold to touch in cold weather and generally sits better in the hand. The only advantage of the metal camera body is... oh wait, there is none. Except the ephemeral "feels better in the hand".
Tapper123: Perhaps the metallic awards system should be done away with? It just leads to contention. Seems the numerical scores are enough, not to mention the conclusion text, for people looking for a summation.
Personally I thought this was a fair review, and I own an EM5 II and enjoy it. Pair it with some really good lenses and it's as good as almost anything except for perhaps some extreme situations where a 35mm sensor has an advantage. I see it as a great all-arounder, a camera that does everything reasonably well, with world class IS, solid build and weather resistance. If you can't get a good image from this camera paired with a good lens, then I suspect the problem is not the camera.
Anyway, gold, silver -- it doesn't matter. It's a great camera, capable of great images, and has a remarkable lens selection. Enjoy it.
@Joerg, that is just ridiculous. It is clear as day, that camera's awards should be named after superheroes: Batman, Superman, Poison Ivy, Flash, Ironman, Wonder Woman, Spiderman, He-Man and so on. Oly E-M5 is clearly the "Flash". Sony A7 - "Deadpool". Canon 5D - "Ironman". Nikon D810 - "Superman".
Whitesands: It would be nice If when we CLICK review it would take is straight to review instead of clicking again....not a huge deal but it's a bit redundant.
The main page of DPR links to the announcement article that E-M5's review is now available in the DPR's camera DB. It is as simple as that.
Every other link to E-M5 review, including the one appearing at the top of the main page, is a direct link to the review.
And the announcement article, the one you complain about, is required, because DPR needs to post something on the main page for it to appear on the main page.
jack of all trades, master of none.
Master of jack of all trades?
Versatility is also a feature.
mgatov: Maybe I'm doing something wrong... but... when I view the RAW files for High Res and D810, the D810 is clearly superior in resolution, contrast, and color.
You view the Oly high-res RAW files with what?
Pretty much the only reliable converter at the moment is the camera itself.
Unless the high-res multi-shot would catch up with more camera brands, I doubt the high-res RAW file support in 3rd party product would be any good.
retro76: So just curious dpreview, which camera is the best JPEG maker: Fuji or Olympus ? (or other). I'm lazy and I am tired of processing raw...,
Better question would be, which camera has most reliable auto WB and exposure metering.
Because, though Oly JPEGs are spectacular, with only few tweaks, you can get very good JPEGs these days even out of the Panasonic.
But. To shoot JPEG-only, you need a camera with reliable AWB and metering.
Accidentally, I hear Olympus has pretty robust AWB and metering nowadays. (In older time, my Olys tended to underexpose by default.)
P.S. I personally use the GX7 in JPEG+RAW (with Vivid picture setting), and though it is not Olympus colors, results are very good too.
@DPR, this question was raised by many on different forums, and I think DPR is very well equipped to answer it by testing the high res mode with a kit lens vs. prime lens.
For the studio scene tests you use the 1.8/45mm. As a kit lens you can use for example the Pana 14-140/mk2 or the Oly 14-150mm or the Oly 12-50mm @ 45mm.
Paul JM: Interesting how this has all panned out for me. I bought the original model about 2 years ago, but really the small sensor is just too restrictive for me. I thought I would be able to live with the MFT sensor size, but the restrictions relating to depth of field, and noise even at base ISO are just not tolerable for me when printing large. I have enjoyed the camera, but ended up keeping my FF SLR and buying a Fuji XE1 as a travel and walk around camera.
"and noise even at base ISO""ended up [...] buying a Fuji XE1"
Might have as well simply applied more NR and blur to the E-M5 files to simulate the Fuji X-Trans' built-in heavy NR.
h2k: The headline: "Rock Steady"
The teaser image: A camera on... wooden planks.
Those wooden planks might have petrified and are technically stone, aka rock.
gmarmot: I fully understand that most people here are photo geeks, as am I, however I'm a bit mystified at folks who downgrade micro 4/3 because of image quality, & say a larger sensor is necessary. What are you doing with your photos? I'm retired & been traveling in 21 3rd world countries for 6 years (sometimes backpacking). My 1/2.3" sensor images were often good enough that at a slide show folks were shocked to learn what camera I used.The point is that most photographers will not need a sensor larger than the EM5II has, and the viewers of their pics will not know the difference. Carrying 36+ oz of my EM5 (now EM5II) and lenses going from 24 to 600 mm, is the absolute max size and weight that is feasible for me.As I'm 62 and grew up shooting film in 35m and larger sizes, I would like to have the image quality of a sensor larger than 35mm full frame, but the weight, size, and cost would, in no way, be worth it.How many of you actually need a sensor larger than this one?
"How many of you actually need a sensor larger than this one?"
Need? Very very few.
mosc: I'm skeptical of DPR's comments on the high resolution mode with various lenses. Each pixel doesn't change size when it's moved. I think DPR is incorrect when it says a lens is perfectly fine for 16mp but not for 40mp. None of the 8 shots taken are more than 16mp. They're all 16mp, they're all the same resolution as all the other samples. The lens only needs 16mp of resolution to give a 40mp image... provided you take 8 of them with precise shifts and do a lot of math.
It's possible the issue is lens related but if it is I'd say it probably has to do more with the algorythm's inability to deal with "digitally corrected lenses" more than the lens's lack of resolution.
"None of the 8 shots taken are more than 16mp."
Many of the m43 lenses do not provide the 16MP of resolution.
But that prompts an interesting test: a high res mode shoot-out of kit lens vs prime. E.g. Oly's own 14-42mm vs. 25mm @ 25mm.
But I doubt the test would uncover something unprecedented. I expect the slight blur, characteristic to zooms, to reappear in the high-res images.
Nice sensor. Nice lenses. Nice location.
I like how DPR is getting out more these days!
P.S. Still no EVF...
fatdeeman: Oh dear, the shadows in the processed ISO 200 shot are awful, I've been spoilt by my NEX 5n. The low noise floor in modern Sony sensors really does make the files very robust when it comes to recovering shadows.
Could this technology not be incorporated into a 4/3 sensor?
Who cares what's in the shadows. If it were worth human attention, it would have been well lit.
Otherwise, Pana sensors have tad bit more read-out noise compared to the Sony's ones.
Also Sony (unlike Pana) does manipulate the point of black to remove the noise in the shadows. That, despite the fact that it needs it less than Pana. To achieve the same effect with the Pana images, just get the RAWs and process them yourself.
Jorginho: Well...very niced cam for the size. But I have to wonder what it gets us over a GM1 or GM5 basically...Selfies?
> It's not any cheaper than the GM1
German prices:GM1's MSRP is 700€GF7's MSRP is 500€
brendon1000: This is the sort of camera that mirrorless is all about. Good IQ in a very small compact body with small compact lenses too.
Sony and Fuji offer better IQ especially the A7 but those aren't terribly small anymore once you factor in the lenses.
That's probably why recent DPR's m43 galleries are full of "social", almost candid, photographs.
Depending on a situation, full black or full white/silver m43 camera with a pancake lens rarely if ever stands out. Something that is extremely hard to accomplish with even the smallest DSLR.
JeanPierre Thibaudeau: This camera seems to produce some of the most beautiful colours I've ever seen. But strangely, at ISO 12800, they also seem to loose a lot of saturation. Nonetheless, I just might buy one for me and keep the ISO at a reasonnable level. Very nice!
@Jean, it is not camera function per se. It is the function of the RAW development. The built-it in-camera JPEG conversion generally tends to err on the safe side of things. While the dedicated PC software has much more CPU/RAM resources to analyze the image in detail and produce better results.
DPR should post more of the stuff!
Here is an interesting blog:
"But to be honest when we’re looking at mirrorless cameras, and entry-level DSLR cameras, and high-end compact cameras, we don’t know which of those will become mainstream."
That's quite telling that Canon itself, after so many years, doesn't consider entry-level DSLRs to be mainstream.
Even more revealing is the dismissal of the mirrorless by throwing them together with the compacts and entry-level DSLRs.
Private and/or family businesses - we need more of those.
Video recording of GH4+OIS vs. E-M5/2+IBIS side by side.