Olympus OM-D E-M1: First Impressions Review

Absolutely agree with pdelux.

You can't compare a Pro grade level camera with an entry level camera, even if it is a DSLR.

For a similar Pro grade DSLR, one would have to go for the Canon 1DX with the 24-70mm f/2.8 L Mk2. It may have slightly better tracking focus but it will cost you about $5,000.00 for the body and another $2,300.00 for the lens eventhough you are willing to take the weight.

For people who want a lighter weather proof camera with a similar focal lenght lens, this camera is it. And it will only cost you about the price of the 24-70mm f/2.8 L Mk2 lens making the combo actually quite affordable.

An excellent combo if you are trotting the globe. Picture quality is not far off from a full frame DSLR.

I own two E-Series bodies and half a dozen 4/3 lenses. I played with a friend's E-M5 recently and loved it but would have never have purchased one because of lack of real compatibilty with my old lenses. The E-M1 now provides a fabulous upgrade path to leading edge technology and easy entry into m4/3 while protecting my investment in glass. I am now saving up to get an E-M1 soon. Smart move, Olympus. Thank you!

Amateurs may consider the EM-1 and the new lens to be expensive but for what they are, they are actually quite cheap. One can have the whole combo for about the same price as the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L MkII which is about $2,300.00.

The main advantage is one is getting a professional grade camera and lens in a small package. Although APS-C cameras and lenses are cheaper, they are not made to this standard.

It is really weather proof; water resistant, dust resistant and freeze proof.

Why is it a big deal ? - it not only improves CAF focussing for ZD lenses but also for m.zd lenses too, so even people without ZD lenses should see a benefit.

Secondly as you said if you are invested in ZD lenses this will give those users a new body, updated with the latest tech with familair AF performance. Sure it is not the same as a 4/3 SLR, but its an alternative

If you remove the PDAF then all you have is a slightly larger EM-5 with add on grip, minor updates. So you see PDAF is the most notable feature.

Didn't know mirrorless cameras needed MLU...

That must be why the lens cap is so expensive and the hood isn't included.

Katsuhiro Takata (the designer of the infamous Oly 4/3") said "If we are only looking at image performance, then a larger sensor is naturally advantageous. On the other hand, if we want to reduce the size, then the image sensor should be small. What is the ideal sensor size to obtain satisfactory quality from a portable size? Getting the balance right between quality and portability was our biggest problem."

in other words, 4/3" was not meant for high quality but right balance. but Oly 4/3" was really a bad design for it was designed for "digital." since digital products changes very fast, the designs also age very fast and Oly 4/3" was really designed for digital of 1990s and born as a unbalanced, low efficiency system from day one.

m4/3" corrected many of the mistakes but the basic idea is still there: a lower quality system at premium price.

The thing with m43 is that it is heavily dependent on software correction, without it, the lenses are horrid. e.g. have you seen the 14/2.8 uncorrected?? It looks like a fisheye lens. Another e.g., the "Olympus" 75/1.8.. hugely expensive and previously set as the pinnacle of Oly engineering and thus priced appropriately.. until people found out that its a Sigma lens. If the same lens was branded as a Sigma it would be 1/2 the price.

So, you see... m43 equipment is overpriced and not because its harder to engineer small things.

"The thing with m43 is that it is heavily dependent on software correction, without it, the lenses are horrid. e.g. have you seen the 14/2.8 uncorrected?? It looks like a fisheye lens. Another e.g., "

In body software correction is the future. It makes more possibilities in lens designs.

"the "Olympus" 75/1.8.. hugely expensive and previously set as the pinnacle of Oly engineering and thus priced appropriately.. until people found out that its a Sigma lens. If the same lens was branded as a Sigma it would be 1/2 the price."

There is no way of knowing that. Maybe it's a Sigma design, but that is just a rumor. The price is high, but it's a great design and the competition is more expensive.

But thanks for talking crap all the time, it makes this camera review very popular and I can see where this is going. Just like with the E-M5. Camera of the year!

@ nerd2 "Based on your logic, nothing will beat iPhone then."

Well, the iPhone 5, 4s and 4 are the 1st, 2nd and 3rd most popular cameras on Flickr...

> The thing with m43 is that it is heavily dependent on software correction, without it, the lenses are horrid. e.g. have you seen the 14/2.8 uncorrected??

First of all there are plenty of m4/3 lenses (such as the 2 45mms) that have either almost no or literally no correction applied. Secondly (as seemingly proven by performance results of the wide angles) it appears that it's often better to project a very sharp but distorted image and correct it digitally than it is to introduce softness trying to correct it optically.

Or do you care more about the "purity" of optical correction rather than the quality of the final image? Remember that even the very well regarded Fuji X lenses use digital correction.

Why do people care? Precision corrected optical glass costs a lot more than running a picture through a math equation. If they're going that route, they should price their junk lenses accordingly. Remember, software correction isn't "free". They degrade the image in some way, be it resolution, noise, or some other form.

Isn't the end result what really matters?

No, it can't be. It's just too simple. :)

Solomon said, "Don't try to reason with the scornful they will only insult you, don't try to assist the mean at heart for they will injure you." (paraphrase)

There is a segment of society that is naturally intolerant of anything different than what they prefer. That's basically what's going on here: "I don't use it, I don't like it, I will be intolerant of it, I will think of terrible things to say about it."

The weird thing is that, in the automobile world, cars come in all shapes, sizes, prices, and capabilities...and yet car enthusiasts are quite accepting and tolerant of all this variety. Not so much amongst camera enthusiasts, apparently. Pathetic.

m43 is indeed a very good format for some usage patterns. Problem is some deluded people that keep preaching m43 'equals' FF system, and cannot take any criticism at all.

Whats really sad though, is that no other art medium gets so destrought about their tools. Do potters call each other stupid for using this or that type of clay? Do painters infer that each other is foolish for buying so and so canvas due to the price? You only see these kinds of comments on technology sites and that may explain alot if you think about it. We didn't sit around and argue about film back in the film days if you catch my drift.

When posters talk FF image quality, I wonder what do they really mean?

The most famous, iconic images were shot on film with manual focus. Once we got past 6 megapixels, it was possible to make prints that were indistinguishable from film. If you want to quibble, I'll raise that comment to 12 megapixels.

Now we have 16 megapixel machines that can see in the dark, with stabilization that lets you hand hold at over a full second. Yet, for some reason you're quibbling over shades of perfection? Your favorite cam is more perfect than mine?

M43 now has auto focus that's as fast and accurate as a $6000 1DX or D4. Sealed bodies and lenses that weigh a fraction of the big gear, yet some want to quibble about differences in depth of field.

Guess what — medium format has a fuller frame than 24x36, and for a few photographers it's the right choice. But for a very few.

Open your mind and enjoy the incredible tools we get to play with in many different formats. Go out and make some images.

On the other hand the 20mm is half the length, less than half the weight and sharper wide open than the Nikon 35mm, so that's what the extra money is paying for.

Solomon said, "Don't try to reason with the scornful they will only insult you, don't try to assist the mean at heart for they will injure you." (paraphrase) OOps wrong place.

m43 is now my main go-around system (with 14-42X and 20mm 1.7). But old FF bodies like 5D or D700 are dirt cheap now (at least here in my country), so it actually makes more sense to keep a FF system for portraits than spending $900 on oly 75mm 1.8 and still get worse bokeh than FF one.

And both 35mm and 50mm nikkors (new ones) are sharp wide open, even at 1:1 magnification.

"Worse bokeh"? the oly 75mm has some of the best bokeh in the business due to its circular aperture bladed rendering OOF smoothly..

Perhaps you meant has more DOF? --- that is also not true.. if you compare the DOF the 75 1.8 has much less DOF at 10ft (0.28) comopared your 50 1.8 on FF body (1.29 ft)

Get a hold on your emotions, and maybe you can learn to appreciate the tools you already have without the need to bash this format or others.

a) Nowadays pretty much every prime lenses have circular aperture blades, including dirt cheap 50mm 1.8G.

b) Your comparison is flawed as the subject distance of two lenses are totally different (50mm FOV vs. 150mm FOV). You will get LESS DOF when subject is closer.

I am not bashing any format, just informing some deluded people.

Selfies? Seriously? That's what your iPhone is for.

cheap plastic may be better than cheap metal.

...and the m43 lenses are over priced, for their rating COMPARATIVELY. So, the better, for bigger hands, thing... is not going to work. That's currently a DSLR.

m43 is not currently the place to build a complete system. Size is the whole point, and so a pocket-able, removable-lens system is the only justification; for less sensitivity. Including less DR, color, shadow, highlight detail, and more ugly noise.

"when M43 sensors are better, and yes that's a high standard. Wake me when that day comes. Right now, APS size, offers a better photographic value."

m43 sensors today are already better than what was available in pro class cameras a few short years ago. And give better results than Canon APS-C and Sony APS-C DSLT cameras today. Difference with even the best APS-C applications, like Nikon D7100, is minuscule and not detectable without instrumentation - unlike the difference in size and weight of comparable lenses. Arguably, that is more than enough for most applications, and if not, for those very few cases when not, then at least FF should be used.

Your opinion does not encompass everyone's needs. That's why there are different cameras and not just one camera for everyone.

But how many photos do you take of darkness. As Fleabag says, everyone has an opinion and I can no better tell you what will work best for you than you for me. BUT, the incremental differences in the small formats that include 4/3, APS-C, and FF are not worth all the comparisons and propagation of untruths. Truth is, in a gallery, the observer can not tell if the photo was made by a Nikon FF or an Oly 4/3. No one ever stood in a gallery and said, "That would be a great shot if it had been taken with a D7100." We can no more become a better photographer by buying a different camera than we can become a better guitarist by buying a different guitar. Galen Rowell (if he was still with us) would make wonderful art pieces with a FF or a 4/3 and folks would still pay largely for them.

How do you measure photographic value? I guess it's quite different for people and depends on their priorities. A camera, that is left at home has zero photographic value at least this is for sure. The difference between best asp-c in dr is at most one stop in extreme shadows. It's not like you get 1stop noise benefit for the whole photo when lifting shadows. Shadow lifting also getting a bit too extreme, more and more photos pop-up that have almost no shadows left and look incredibly flat.

The difference between aps-c and m43 sensor performance is so small in real life, that it's totally negligible. Other things matter far more, lenses, focus accuracy and speed, ergonomics etc. I mean, what for are you taking photos? To pixel peep?

Why Canon still is popular then? Their aps-c sensors are a bit worse than m43, even FF sensors have tiny bit less DR at base iso. I guess some people use their photo gear to take photos and are not obsessed with data sheets.

First of all, RX-1 has a fixed lens, you can't simply add a mount to it and expect other focal lengths to perform as well as that 35mm lens. Lenses will be rather huge too, UWA probably won't be even possible since looks like distance to sensor is really short in RX-1. RX-1 is also quite clunky and slow.

No thanks, i would like m43 stay m43 with lots of small and superb lenses and also i don't really want to pay 3000-4000$ usd just to get razor thin DOF.

Exactly, the differences do not matter. For me, and I know this does not matter to anyone else, but I love the advantage of 4/3 IS that allows me to hand hold a waterfall at 1/8 and get a great photo (with any lens) and thats with the old IS. Makes a tripod optional on those times when you get there without one. I love knowing that my lenses will take some of their best photos wide open. These kinds of reasons mean nothing to others but they are important to me and, after all, it's my art and my money. Do I think this makes Oly superior to other makes, no. Do I think that Oly is inferior to other makes, certainly not. There does not have to be quorum of opinions to validate what works for me and there need not for anyone else.

In this day and age, people who are still anally pixel peeping and complaining that IQ still isn't good enough (for them)...well, I find these people are generally the kind of people who do the least photography.

As for "photographic value"...I use Canon APS-C and FF, but I also use m4/3, and I have to say that there is definitely "photographic value" in being able to take a trick with lighter, more compact camera gear. Frankly, I've never been out shooting and said to myself "I love carrying heavier camera gear! More weight and bulk, please!" On the other hand, there have been plenty of times in the past when I've wished for lighter, more compact gear that didn't weigh me down so much. I think m4/3, as a complete system, now allows us that. There is definitely value in that, to me.

"D7100 do have much better low light / high ISO properties"

They don't. DxOMark put the difference in high ISO scores between D7100 and the tiny E-PM2 at just 0.43EV (=LOG2(1256/932) ), vignetting on most lenses is much higher than that. It certainly does not qualify as "much better". And they did not even test GX7 and E-M1 yet.

For people that make a living from photography the E-M1 offers superior interface, that alone is worth the upgrade for many, but I am happy to see that the sensor image did not stay stagnant.

"it is a known fact that the ISO speeds on the E-M5 are off by nearly a full stop". Pardon me, what? Please explain.

there is no doubt about ISO cheating but it's not a full stop against other cameras. half stops maybe and it's about 1/3 stops in DPReview's tests (for not too high ISOs, and it swings between 1/3 and 2/3 in real world shooting).

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/872%7C0/(brand)/Panasonic/(appareil2)/793%7C0/(brand2)/Olympus/(appareil3)/176%7C0/(brand3)/Canon

Don’t trust DXO? If you own the E-M5, shoot with a camera that DXO says has accurate ISO at the same exact settings. The E-M5 will underexposed by 1-stop in raw, the jpeg will be closer because the jpeg engine pulls the shadows.

yes DxOMark also tells us that E-M5 does ISO cheating.

I trust DxO, but the fact that the camera ISO doesn't match the sensor saturation ISO isn't strange, as you know, they're not the same thing. Even if the over-cautious camera ISO on the E-M5 makes their JPEG look more noisy in comparison shots, that's simply the decision of the camera maker, balanced against the risk of the user inadvertently blowing the headlights.

P.S: Yabokkie, if Olympus is trying to cheat by making their JPEG look worse (underexposing plus pulling) then they're frankly doing it wrong.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4241806072/sense-and-sensitivity

"Sensitivity (ISO) in digital imaging seems to be the subject of quite a lot of confusion - it's becoming common to hear talk of manufacturers 'cheating with ISO.' So we thought it made sense look at why sensitivity appears hard to pin down, why we use the definition we do and how it's actually not as complicated as it can sometimes seem."

"cheating with ISO" happens when one camera produces grossly different exposures than majority of the cameras do on the same settings.

And that's exactly what both: Olympus and Fuji do in order to get their camera "look" better for people who are not aware of these practices. They just compare ISO 3200 to ISO 3200 while in fact it should be ISO 3200 to ISO 1600, or similar.

basically we want to know what work a product can do compared with others available on the market.

in case of photographic lenses, everything controlled by aperture will be always the same if the aperture size (diameter or area) is the same, regardless of the sensor format. and aperture size is a major factor that decides a lens value/price.

like it or not, DOF is a handy indicator of lens aperture. if all other conditions are the same, deeper DOF always means a lens that's darker/slower or stopped down and shallower DOF means one that's brighter/faster, again regardless of sensor format.

one should be able to see it easily in images from different camera lenses, from phone camera to medium format.

Like it or not, the range of DOF (that which is perceived to be focus) is relative to the size of the Circle of Confusion. Larger format, larger circle. Smaller format, smaller circle, and if one is not sure what that means, check with Zeiss:

http://www.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b8b6f/embedtitelintern/cln_35_bokeh_en/$file/cln35_bokeh_en.pdf

on Circle of Confusion,

COC is measured against the image frame, PH, PW, diagonal or sqrt(area) for different aspect ratios. traditionally we used to use 1/1300 diagonal for depth of field and diffraction limited aperture calculation.

in principle, all photographic effects should be measured against the image frame for that's what we call a photograph.

none of focal length, f-number, or ISO is measured against image frame so they have no photographic meaning (they can have if translated with other information).

Circle of yabokkie?

It's impressive how many people are confused about comparing camera systems of different format. Also impressive that the same people seem to be unable or unwilling to comprehend what is very clearly presented here by yabokkie -- image quality is primarily determined by how much light is collected on a sensor (film, etc) by the lens and the efficiency of the sensor(basically how well it can count photons). Whoever wants to educate themselves a bit more read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format

yabokkie, seriously, what's wrong with your brain?

Envy -
We don't Need Arnold Schwarzenegger to carry our gear, and you really have to pixel peep to see much difference - or make billboard print s from one image ....

a 25/0.95 will get us the same result as a 50/1.8, be it angle of view, light gathering capacity, depth of field, or diffraction limit ... every photographic effect as a result of such a spec, with no exception.

For God sake... There's a part of human kind who doesn't give a f**k about FF!!!
Ok? Got it?
How can we get to make you understand this simple fact???

I don't want a FF: my m43 stuff is less expensive, lighter and give me all the quality I need.

M43 is a system, full stop.

we don't expect all in the market behave rational but
it'll be a better market if more people behave rational.

2 rikyxxx

yabokkie is just helping you and others to be a bit more rational. Knowing that e.g. 25 f/0.95 + m43 camera will give you exactly the same pictures as 50 f/1.8 + full-frame does help you make better purchasing decisions.

Had the market been more rational and therefore been pushed in the right direction we'd possibly already have small full-frame cameras (just like in the film days) with inexpensive high quality lenses instead of the current situation of inexpensive m43 bodies with extremely expensive m43 lenses for what they equivalently are (like $1000 for 24-80 f/5.6 equivalent lens that Olympus has just released).

2 ppastoris

Obsessed FF fanboys (like you and yabokkie) who thinks everyone should have a FF camera, are the ones needing help, not me.

2 rikyxxx: Not sure who is obsessed here :)..
FF is just *by convention* a convenient frame of reference for different format systems. Why do you think people call e.g. a m4/3 25mm lens a "50mm FF equivalent"? Most people aren't comfortable with angle of view numbers.

Just the same way using equivalent f-numbers makes it easy to compare DoF and light-gathering capacities of lenses between the systems. Knowing that for a given angle of view e.g. m4/3 f/1.4 is equivalent in terms of DoF and how much light it gathers to FF f/2.8 and in turn to APS-C f/2 makes it super easy to compare what system has the best price / capabilities relationship for you.

Lastly, knowing that roughly imaging noise depends on ISO and sensor size as ISO*(crop factor)^2 makes it easy compare noise of e.g. a m4/3 sensor vs APS-C vs Full-frame. E.g. if your m4/3 camera has ISO 200-25600 then the noise it produces will be similar to the noise for APS-C at ISO 400-51200 or FF at ISO 800-102400.

Simple.

ppastoris,

M43 is a system in its own right... no one compares phone cameras to FF equivalent, even though a phone camera is extremely important in this modern day.

There is a place for these types of comparisons, but it is not in the preview/annoucements comments section.

Plus your comparisons are only universally true for DOF, however noise determined by sensor efficiency that is all. M43 sensors are better than FF sensors from a few years back.

2 pdelux:

A bit more efficient but not by much, by about 1/6 stop (per unit area of course). See for example DXO data ("Low-light ISO"): Nikon D800 -- 2853, APS-C Nikon D7100 -- 1256, Oly E-M5 -- 826. Normalizing by sensor size you get : D800 -- 2856, D7100 -- 1256*1.5^2=2826, Oly E-M5 -- 826*(24*35.9/(13*17.3))=3164. Therefore E-M5's sensor is just log2(3164/2853) = 1/6 stop better, while D7100 and D800 sensors have essentially identical sensitivity.

Just like I'm yet to see a 12-xx zoom for m4/3 that offers as much control over DOF as 24-xx does on FF.

Yes yes yes. That is exactly the point. Some will want to carry all the weight and that's fine, but there is nothing wrong with choosing lighter. Beautiful photos can be made with this camera as they can with any of the other manufacturers. Photography happens in the connection between the place between the ears and the place where we feel what we see. So there is nothing wrong or demented about choosing a smaller hammer. It doesn't matter how much horsepower or camera has or whether it was made by Ping or Calaway.

Yes! I don't get why folks complain all the times about sensor size. EM-1 is still cheaper than cheapest entry level FF cameras. But instead of cripped low end functionality it's equipped with premium features.

Fe. EOS 6D is only better at high ISO and has little bit more resolution. When comparing about EVERY other technical aspect it seems to be much worse camera. X-sync speed of 1/180s is a joke today (1/320s with EM-1) and 4.5 fps is no match for 10 fps with EM-1. No IBIS for legacy lences, no wifi, non tiltable screen, worse weather sealing and what is important for photographer: less customization options than EM-1.

Like a painter, photography is the end result of how a person conceive, see and interpret what he want to capture as a photograph. Whatever camera he use are just tools to make it possible.

A full frame DSLR has its advantages as well as its limitation. In some situation, a Micro 4/3 camera has its advantages. It is smaller and lighter which is very useful for travel to difficult places. If one is not printing bigger than 24" x 16", there is very little difference between one taken by a Micro 4/3 compared to a full frame camera.

In photography, ultimately, its the content or the image that one captured is the star.

For those looking for excellent bokeh, using the Oly 45mm f1.8, the 75mm f1.8 and the Voightlander 25mm f/0.95 are great choices.

DarkShift: EOS 6D has WiFi... Bought mine 2 weeks ago. Shooting with 600mm F/4 MkII. Just paid for it all in one shoot. Some of the best images I've captured. I will not go to Olympus as they will not be here in 5 years. Someone will have to buy them to save them.

Comparison with D4 is an absolute joke. I'd prefer D7100 over OMD at any moment (larger sensor, more MP, faster continuous shoogin with AF, C-AF actually works, same weather sealing and good enough control)

"Ming Thein has a very interesting post that shows how the OM-D E-M1 is most correctly compared to the Nikon D4. Same resolution, similar build quality, similar focus speed and accuracy."

Sorry, but that is incredible BS. At $1,400, Olympus SHOULD HAVE made it competitive with D4 at least in focus tracking speed (up to 10 fps on D4), but blew the chance, instead coming under 70D/k-5/D7100 (7 fps), at higher price.
And it is yet to be seen how reliable the AF system is in low light, after all, with only 1/16 of pixels in a given focusing point (zone) working for PDAF, it simply gets very little light.

Arrgghh! I was bemoaning the fact that American camera shoppers are so entranced by form over function, as evidenced by the popularity of cameras with a "faux" appearance. American shoppers -- disproportionately -- DON'T LOOK BENEATH THE SKIN. What part of that don't you understand?

Never mind. Forget it. It's clearly a thought "too far" for some of you people.

It's probably the same kind of thinking that influences some bikers in buying an Enfield or a Harley rather than a machine that to them looks more like some kind of mechanised stick insect. Classic designs will always remain attractive, especially to veteran users who feel comfortable with the familiar design and layout of controls.

Okay, I think I see your point now in your latest post. Your OP got all confused trying to make some sort of statement about Americans when it is actually Japanese camera companies and Japanese designers that you are upset with. Yes, I have been using cameras a long time and I, also, don't care for non-SLR cameras that have been made to look like SLRs and in so doing have worse ergonomics than would be possible. The Panasonic GX7 looks good to me. The NEX 7 also. The E-M5 has very disappointing ergonomics and almost all of that is because Olympus wanted it to look like a miniature OM-1. I have an E-M5 and I wrote about this well more than a year ago:

http://bakubo.blogspot.com/2012/06/olympus-om-d-e-m5-poor-ergonomics.html

Sadly, Americans in general are very large and overweight, and I guess they like their cameras that way too. LOL.