ThePhilips: Should have been cheaper, smaller, lighter and probably f/4.0.
At $600, it would have hard time going against the legacy 100mm-ish macro lenses which can be found on eBay/etc for around $300.
> If only so it can double as a portrait lens etc.
Why on earth. There are more portrait lenses around than the macro lenses. Next to "nifty fifty", the portraits are probably the most abundant lenses. They are also dirt cheap. While long-ish macro lenses are expensive.
Why manufacturers keep listening to people like you? and constantly screw up the long macro lenses?
The f/2.8 is NOT needed for macro. AF is NOT needed for the macro. If macro lens is sharp wide open, I would even take a f/5.6. Because the typical DOF is so thin anyway, I would be probably often stepping down to f/8 anyway.
Should have been cheaper, smaller, lighter and probably f/4.0.
Michel F: At $200 less it could be appealing for budding macro shooters on a tight budget but I don't understand how this product can be relevant in a crowded market segment of 90-105mm macro lenses that are already excellent.
A 150 or 200mm manual focus macro f/3.5 to f/4 manual with a similar price tag would make much more sense.
Me thinks that if the price doesn't go down substantially Samyang will be stuck with a product that doesn't sell.
If you once saw a lens listed for $150, it doesn't mean it "can be had" easily for this price. On average, the legacy 100mm-ish macro lenses for around $300. Which is still far below the $600 for this Samyang, but not as lucrative as the ephemeral $150 people keep quoting.
Timelapse with a DSLR? Sounds like a sure way to wear out the shutter mechanics.
On related note: how many DSLRs support the e-shutter?
Papi61: "Unlimited Everything Plan (free 3-month trial, then $59.99 per year—equivalent of less than $5 per month): Store an infinite number of new and existing photos, videos, files, documents, movies, and music in Cloud Drive."
How's this supposed to be a good deal? For $69/year Microsoft gives you unlimited OneDrive storage PLUS Office 365.
> "I know you're just too arrogant to admit you're wrong."
Again, where is the button to buy the "unlimited" plan?
Quote: "Office 365 will get unlimited storage". Not "have", not "can click here to upgrade immediately". And it is a blog post, not official press release.
> "despite the EVIDENCE"
What evidence? "Preview" is not a "product". Where is the button to buy the "unlimited" plan? You keep posting links to web-sites NOT related to Microsoft. While officially Microsoft does NOT offer unlimited plan.
Again, here are the *official* pages of Microsoft with the "Buy it" buttons:
Find me one *official* page with "Buy it" standing next to the "Unlimited plan".
May be you should? For example, instead of going to the yellow-press low-quality "journalism" what Engadget had became in recent years, go straight to the source? -
Find me a *single* unlimited plan.
OneDrive is not "unlimited". At $69.99/year it is 1TB of storage. Microsoft's OneDrive has no unlimited plans.
ThePhilips: Con:"16MP beginning to look low by contemporary standards"
And here I thought that DPR was over the MP race.
And what I'm supposed to do with all the details? Except boasting on the tech forums? (A sincere question.)
The details help not in the slightest with, for example, the composition. Or the lighting/colors of the scene. Both of which have much much more profound effect on the viewer.
Details?.. I could have tried to say something witty, but I'm bad at it. Thus I would give a simple counterexample: rare smartphone shot has 5MP worth of details.
Con:"16MP beginning to look low by contemporary standards"
The miniaturization tech of Panasonic is just amazing. The GM1, the 12-32mm and now the CM1.
Though, evidently, no laws of physics were broken.
ThePhilips: > but any movement at all results in unpleasant artifacts.
A thought crossed my mind: if they would change the sequence in which they take the photographs, randomize it so to say, the artifacts actually might look less ugly.
Right now they are so apparent, because the sensor shift follows a regular pattern, amplifying the distortions of some motions. If sensor shift pattern wouldn't be as regular, fewer of movement patterns would look creepy.
> but any movement at all results in unpleasant artifacts.
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.