Previous page Next page

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review

Buy on GearShop$1,299.00


Based on a production Olympus OM-D E-M1 with Firmware 1.0

The E-M1 is the second model in Olympus's OM-D series and extends the range further into semi-pro/enthusiast territory. There are two main distinctions that set the E-M1 apart from its little brother (the E-M5) - a more sophisticated autofocus system and a 'buttons for everything' design approach. As such the two models will coexist, with the E-M1 sitting at the very top of Olympus's lineup.

The biggest technological step forward on the E-M1 is the addition of on-sensor phase detection elements, giving the camera two distinct focus modes. The phase-detection system is used when lenses from the original Four Thirds system, which were designed for use that way, are attached. With native, Micro Four Thirds lenses, the camera will mainly stick with the contrast detection system that has proved so fast and accurate on the E-M5. Only if you use tracking AF will the camera utilize phase-detection information with a Micro Four Thirds lens.

The E-M1 also gains the excellent 2.3M-dot electronic viewfinder panel we first saw as the VF-4 accessory for the PEN E-P5. Not only is the resolution very impressive, but the viewfinder optics give a viewfinder with magnification of up to 1.48x (depending on display mode), which puts it only a fraction behind the 0.76x viewfinder in Canon's 1D X and ahead of Nikon's pro-grade D4 DSLRs.

There's also a more advanced 'TruePic VII' processor in the E-M1 that conducts a variety of lens corrections, when creating JPEGs, leading the company to proclaim the best image quality offered by one of its cameras. Not only can the E-M1 remove the colour fringing caused by lateral chromatic aberration, Olympus says that it also tunes its sharpening to take into account the lens's sharpness, and to combat any softening due to diffraction (particularly at very small apertures).

The biggest difference between the E-M1 and the E-M5, though, is the degree of direct control on offer. We really liked the E-M5's twin-dial control system, but the E-M1 goes beyond that by providing button-and-dial combinations for quickly changing almost every imaginable setting on the camera. It's the kind of approach you don't usually get until the very top of manufacturers' lineups - it means you have to get used to where every function is, but can shoot fluidly once you have.

The E-M1 inherits the '2x2' dial approach Olympus previously used on the E-P5 - flicking a switch on the camera changes the dials from controlling shutter speed, aperture or exposure compensation to changing ISO and white balance. However, all this direct control doesn't come at the expense of the potentially slower but easier to find touch-screen interface - the E-M1 has this too. Overall the camera can be operated pretty much however you fancy.

Olympus OM-D E-M1 specification highlights:

  • 16MP MOS Four Thirds format sensor with no low-pass filter
  • On-sensor phase detection elements
  • Twin control dials (front and rear) with '2x2' dual-mode option
  • '5-axis' image stabilization with automatic panning detection ('S-IS Auto')
  • ISO 'LOW' (100 equiv) - ISO 25,600
  • Up to 10fps continuous shooting (6.5 fps shooting with continuous AF)
  • 1.04M-dot 3" LCD touchscreen display - tilts 80° upwards and 50° downwards
  • Electronic viewfinder: 2.36M-dot LCD, 0.74x magnification (equiv.), eye sensor
  • Built-in Wi-Fi for remote shooting and image transfer to smartphone or tablet
  • Dust, splash and freeze-proof (to -10 °C)

Gained over the E-M5

  • True Pic VII processor, with lens corrections
  • 1/8000 sec top shutter speed, 1/320 sec flash sync
  • Built-in microphone socket (rather than optional accessory adapter)
  • Flash X-sync socket
  • Built-in Wi-Fi
  • Focus 'peaking' display
  • In-camera HDR blending (two modes), previewed in viewfinder

Four Thirds is dead. Long live Four Thirds.

As well as representing the highest-end Micro Four Thirds camera yet, the E-M1's role is also about offering continued support for users of the original Four Thirds SLR system. Olympus created some very nice Four Thirds lenses, but the company struggled to make enough impact in the SLR market to justify the cost of continuing development for both systems in parallel.

The company claims to have studied what the E-M1 and a hypothetical 'E-7' SLR could offer, and concluded that, while image quality, durability and speed would have been the same, the OM-D design allowed both a substantial size advantage and a much greater viewfinder magnification than would be possible with an optical finder. As such the E-M1 should be considered the successor to the E-5.

We'll look at the performance of the camera with Four Thirds lenses in a little more depth later in this article. But in principle, the on-sensor phase detection autofocus system should be much more effective than contrast detection when it comes to controlling Four Thirds lenses, all of which were primarily designed to be driven by phase detection-based systems.


If you're new to digital photography you may wish to read the Digital Photography Glossary before diving into this article (it may help you understand some of the terms used).

Conclusion / Recommendation / Ratings are based on the opinion of the reviewer, you should read the ENTIRE review before coming to your own conclusions.

Images which can be viewed at a larger size have a small magnifying glass icon in the bottom right corner of the image, clicking on the image will display a larger (typically VGA) image in a new window.

To navigate the review simply use the next / previous page buttons, to jump to a particular section either pick the section from the drop down or select it from the navigation bar at the top.

DPReview calibrate their monitors using Color Vision OptiCal at the (fairly well accepted) PC normal gamma 2.2, this means that on our monitors we can make out the difference between all of the (computer generated) grayscale blocks below. We recommend to make the most of this review you should be able to see the difference (at least) between X,Y and Z and ideally A,B and C.

This article is Copyright 2013 and may NOT in part or in whole be reproduced in any electronic or printed medium without prior permission from the author.

Previous page Next page
1292
I own it
694
I want it
159
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 2063
34567
Jan Hemels

At random in this review the names E5 and E-M5 are used when comparing .
Comparison is in my opinion only done with E-M5 and not with the last DSLR from Olympus the E5

0 upvotes
pdelux

The only comparison with the E5 should be PDAF performance with ZD lenses. I think its commonly accepted that the E-M5 and E-M1 is on improvement in most other areas.

2 upvotes
Stu 5

Your Olympus E-M5 Raw files show they are taken with a 45mm f1.8 when you hover over the 'i' button for information but when you download them they have been taken on a 50mm f2. You need to either reshoot them with a 45mm f1.8 or reshoot the E-M1 files with a 50mm f2.

3 upvotes
rikyxxx

1380 comments!!!
Olympus products still grab people attention and that's what drives someone mad...

5 upvotes
Nathebeach

Google the youtube clip of William Shatner on Saturday Night Live. He is at a trekkie convention, and he tells all the trekkies that are idolizing him to go out and "GET A LIFE."
Seeing all of these comments kind of reminds me of that clip. I guess that makes me one of the trekkies. Time for me to get away from my computer and go shoot some more photos.

Here is one version, but it is not the complete one. If I find the full version I will post:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaB_G1WNT70

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Thomas Karlmann

I think DPR has spent WAY too much time talking about 4/3 lens AF. The review is unclear as to whether 4/3 or m4/3 lenses are discussed. Please redo this -- I think most users want to know about m4/3 lens' AF!!!! I saw a review video on this camera and when the 4/3 lenses came up there was a cutaway showing a guy blowing a HUGE cloud of dust off of the 4/3 lens box. I think that is quite apt and the DPR review does not reflect the majority of E-M1 usage. Leave the 4/3 lens stuff off to a sidebar!

0 upvotes
pdelux

Umm PDAF 4/3 support is a big deal...

6 upvotes
Thomas Karlmann

How do you figure that? Are you invested in lots of their lenses? I can recall a few years ago everyone stated 4/3 was dead/dying and m4/3 was the way to go. I didn't make up the comment about the dust -- look here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESOj56fWB8Q
timecode 5:45

0 upvotes
pdelux

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.

6 upvotes
Thomas Karlmann

I was not criticizing the E-M1 -- I see the need for PDAF, rather DPR's apparent preoccupation with 4/3 compatibility in the partial review we now have. This might be just me -- as I have no Olympus equipment at all -- I need to realize that lots of others looking at E-M1 might have loads of $$ invested here in Oly.

0 upvotes
Thomas Karlmann

Question: There was discussion in the Review about some close misses in terms of customizable buttons and switches. It was also stated the V-Grip's button customization is independent of the Body's assignments. Does the Accessory Vertical Grip alleviate some of the confusion about custom button assignments?

0 upvotes
Salvux

Hello guys! First time i post bere... So many comments! After being a Pentax user for a long time, i switched to m43 (pen). I really like this e-m1, but i hope olympus will make a 4/3 version as well. Same electronics, no mirror, same evf, only a mmf-3 permanently mounted and a built in pop-up flash for the 4/3 customers. Maybe a more standard (modern) DSLR body design will be welcommed by some users.

0 upvotes
Yacht Master

Salvux,

The OMD EM1 is a 4/3 version, yes there is a adapter but the camera and the new PD focus is so that all 4/3 Olympus lens can be used.

1 upvote
Stu 5

Using the new Lightroom 5.2 I just loaded the EM-1 Raw files from DRPreview and compared them to the EM-5 Raw files both lit with tungsten lighting. Does not help the EM-1 shots are using a 45mm f1.8 and the EM-5 are with a 50mm f2 when you compare detail. Basically you can’t. The good news though is the EM-1 is better on noise. If you look at 3200 and 6400 iso and compare the two cameras the blacks are far more clean on the EM-1. It makes 6400 very useable now and improves 3200.

The really interesting is comparing EM-1 6400 iso to 5D MKIII 12800 iso Raws. Very similar. Canon shows a tiny bit more detail but the noise is a tiny bit higher as well. Really only going to notice it at 100% though which in real world use is not important.

Comment edited 45 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
Actrurus

I like the HDR function you didn't mention :-)

The camera can be setup to shoot up to 7 exposures with a 2ev increment - brilliant for me shooting HDR panoramas, no longer any need to adjust the shutter speed manually anymore!!! Now, will my Olympus Fisheye work with the adapter....

0 upvotes
Kay Fisher

But... As I understand it (and this is the way it works on the EM-5) you have to press the shutter button all seven times without the benefit of the 2 second self timer and each press causes camers shake on the tripod.

0 upvotes
Macx

Kay, if you set it to sequential mode and hold down the shutter button, it fires off the series in a snap. Consider getting a cable remote for the tripod shots, though. Third-party ones are fairly cheap. (I suppose on the E-M1 you could also just use your smart phone/tablet as remote)

3 upvotes
Thomas Karlmann

I am seeing a growing and unsettling trend in DPR reviews -- no picture of the focus points. In this review, I had hopes, as you showed the legacy 4/3 phase detection points. Where are the m4/3 Contrast AF points? You have also missed this important depiction in many other reviews to the point where I have to go looking elsewhere to find it. DPR is deviating from what used to be an all-inclusive review to one of smart phone connections and some other stuff. You spend an entire page or two on all sorts of irrelevant-to-me connections to some smart phones while ignoring a far more fundamental topic. Is DPR is becoming a smart phone accessories forum? I'm not going to bother checking back for your Conclusion, because, well, without the smart phone, why bother?

4 upvotes
Macx

In fairness, this is more of a "first look", not their final review.

2 upvotes
Iskender

"You spend an entire page or two on all sorts of irrelevant-to-me connections to some smart phones while ignoring a far more fundamental topic."

Oh noes, the free preview wasn't tailor-made to fit your needs!

3 upvotes
Rockaw

Look what just showed up
http://www.olympusamerica.com/files/oima_cckb/E-M1_MANUAL_EN.pdf

1 upvote
babalu

Great link, thanks !!!!! this camera is sure loaded with features.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
rfsIII

This isn't a pro camera. It doesn't even have mirror lockup.

12 upvotes
pdelux

LOL Nice one!

0 upvotes
RPJG

Nvm.

Comment edited 20 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
gulffish

Great, another shaggy pro camera story!

0 upvotes
bluevellet

What happened to some of the replies here? Deleted?

0 upvotes
mapgraphs

More comments hidden? Who knew.

0 upvotes
steveTQP

Didn't know mirrorless cameras needed MLU...

1 upvote
bluevellet

No, some comments from yabokkie and people responding to his trolls were removed. They're not hidden.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
motofoto54

First time posting and simply want to share candidly without any attempt to convince anyone of my beliefs or opinions.

I've been a professional photographer for over 35 years and was originally a Nikon user back in the days of the F2/F3/F4S. With the advent of auto-focus, I tried the EOS 1 system and immediately sold my Nikon gear, lenses...everything. Since that time, I have been a die-hard Canon EOS, 5D/7D user and most recently, the Sony NEX 7.

I will purchase this new Olympus OM-D E-M1 for the following reasons:

1. I've always had great respect for M. Zuiko lenses. Truly great optics.
2. Although I like the physical size and portability of the Nex 7, I miss the ergonomic feel and familiarity of shooting with an slr type camera. I also now understand that it's not just about the megapixel count, but also about the optics (Zuiko)
3. The E-M1 appears to be a well built camera and simply (imho) the best designed dslr camera I have ever seen. Can't wait to get my hands on one!

18 upvotes
pdelux

Well said from an intelligent open minded individual. Look at the camera based on all its merits, not just sensor size. Sensor Size complaint is quite trivial with modern sensors in all but the extreme ISOs.

6 upvotes
zakk9

I tried it today and can confirm what you say. Best ergonomics ever, particularly with the vertical grip. It even bests my previous favourite, the F6 in this respect. I won't sell all my Nikons, mostly for nostalgic reasons, but for most of my work, the E-M1 is a vastly more practical camera and as is mentioned above: The optics are second to none.

5 upvotes
Walter S

For such a highly configurable camera a settings backup would be nice.

7 upvotes
white shadow

Olympus EM-1 in Paris

For those who are interested to have an alternative opinion on the EM-1, can take a look at what Micheal has to say at:

luminous-landscape.com

He has made some interesting observation and will be making more in days to come.

Meanwhile, I will be getting my hands on one in a few days time to make my own observation. Should be very interesting to test out the new 12-40mm f/2.8 if it is available.

Qoute Unknown:

Whatever camera you maybe using, photography is about image making and not pixel peeping.

10 upvotes
McFern

Oh my goodness! Nikon and Canon users are a demented lot and anyone using any other brand is bad as a smart phone photographer and we all know how demented the are. They're as bad as those vidiographers who aren't real photographers anyway. Now we're all offended. My Olys suit me perfectly and the images they make please the folks I work for and the folks I share with. What is demented about that? Wonder how many writers sit around telling each other that they are silly for using this or that type of ink pen or word processing software. Really?

11 upvotes
Adrian Van

I personally think that Nikon and Canon should put together something more high end or fully featured in the world of compact system cameras. What they have released so far, is less than spectacular to excite the enthusiast buyer public and lack of sales may confirm it. A well specified APS-C mirrorless camera with features, that you could add adaptor for Nikon glass would be best. Nikon 1 is not selling well as expected (fast AF but needs bigger sensor and more controls and better menus) and neither is Canon EOS-M which has bigger sensor but has slow AF. I imagine that their next versions should be better featured, so I can add my Nikon glass with adaptor to the next Nikon mirrorless sensor camera maybe with PDAF on sensor provided sensor finally gets bigger for a Nikon ILC.
Until then Olympus looks great and competes well with APS-C formats, and is a good balance of features, great image quality and compact lens sizes!

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
photohounds

Ah, amnother poster who "thinks" less glass/metal means the lens is "worth" less.
They'll buy an f150 truck rather than a Ferrari because more metal for the money is "better".
Making excellent small things is harder and costs MORE, not less.

Some people appreciate the price of everything and the value of nothing.

More compact cameras often translate into more/better photo opportunities.

Agree, Nuno, I don't hang around the CaNikon forums either. Too busy enjoying my camera.

These cross brand whiners are a very sad lot and it must be very depressing in CaNikon land for them to enjoy spending so much time here ....

Comment edited 53 seconds after posting
9 upvotes
nerd2

"More compact cameras often translate into more/better photo opportunities."

Based on your logic, nothing will beat iPhone then.

2 upvotes
iamphil

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

2 upvotes
yabokkie

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.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Jogger

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.

2 upvotes
Thorgrem

"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!

Comment edited 25 seconds after posting
12 upvotes
Andy Crowe

@ 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...

2 upvotes
Andy Crowe

> 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.

1 upvote
iamphil

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.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
bluevellet

Isn't the end result what really matters?

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

2 upvotes
Macx

First: Price is a function of supply and demand; not cost.

Second: Optical correction isn't in itself better than software correction. Both create a loss of contrast, resolution and noise/aberrations. Both are used to keep costs, weight and size of the lenses down. Sometimes optical correction will give a better end image, sometimes software correction will; as mentioned above, the end result is what matters.

Third: Optical corrections have been a necessity because of optical viewfinders, and if you're using a DSLR you'll want to use such lenses to give you the corrected view in your finder, but mirrorless cameras do not have OVFs so they have more freedom to choose how to correct the lens. For mirrorless there's no inherent disadvantage to software correction, but even so you often see a combo of the two in lenses for mirrorless.

That's why we see software correction for mirrorless. Not because they're junk or cheap, but because they're an option we didn't really have with DSLRs.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
Nuno Souto

The thing that baffles me is why don't the nay sayers and negative commenters go somewhere else? It's not like there is an obligation to use this camera, FFS!

Don't like it? Use something else, keep your idiotic uninformed opinions to yourself! Yes, that includes the diggloyds of this world!

And let those of us who derive a real advantage from using this system enjoy it, as we do.

Ah yes: we're all gonna give up on it because of your "opinions"?
GMAB!...

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
16 upvotes
bluevellet

Well, it's not that baffling.

With a camera almost universally loathed (for its looks), the Pentax K-01. people express their disgust in the comment section and then they leave. End of story.

Here, it's different. They just don't express their opinion, they want to rally other people away from the camera. The E-M1 encroaches into the territory of higher end DSLRs, territory that used to be off limits to mirrorless cameras, and some feel threatened by it.

There's also a bit of a snowball effect too. As the camera gains buzz here in the comment section, the temptation is too great for posters with agendas to try to stop it. It only contributes to the amount of chatter here.

8 upvotes
McFern

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)

4 upvotes
T3

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.

4 upvotes
nerd2

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.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
McFern

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.

6 upvotes
Rockaw

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.

4 upvotes
nerd2

M43 has better af than d4 or 1dx? M43 weighs a fraction of equivalent ff gear? Now I am awestruck...

0 upvotes
Plastek

McFern - you're wrong. Musicians also are talking years about their gear.
The GAS originally came from musicians - as a Guitar Acquisition Syndrome - much later it was translated into photography market as a Gear A.S. .

nerd2
"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."
- you just nailed it.

0 upvotes
McFern

Thanks for proving my point about technology items Plastek. If you ever watched Bob Ross paint, he used the same colors again and again out of the hugh palet of colors available. Why? Because he was used to working with those colors and knew the results he would obtain. We did this in the film days with film, you chose and stuck with it. A new guitar and some lessons can teach a person to play the guitar but it does not make him a guitarist nor does buying "the Best" new camera make someone a photographer. No art can be learned on the intenet or in a video game.

0 upvotes
nerd2

$1399 price is clearly overpriced, even so if you consider the price of lenses.

I am a huge fan of 'normal' perspective, and used to mainly use APS body + 35mm 1.8 DX lens. Now am maintaining two systems, FF body + 50.8 and m43 body + 20.7. The biggest problem is that with m43, lens prices are grossly inflated for what you get. 20mm 1.7 is $400 lens. 35mm 1.8 for APS is $200 lens (with AFS focusing). 50mm 1.8D is dirt cheap, around $100. Also I don't quite like the deep DOF of 20mm 1.7 lens. There are other options like 25mm 1.4 or 25mm 0.95 MF, but they are bulky and costly, totally cost contradicting the very idea of m43 format.

3 upvotes
ThePhilips

"Now am maintaining two systems, FF body + 50.8 and m43 body + 20.7."

Wow. You call the "two lenses" setup - "two systems"??

And after forking {god only knows how much} cash for the FF body... you complain about $200 price difference of the lenses? all while these particular lens prices are still a magnitude cheaper than the prices of bodies?...

P.S. m43's "25mm 1.4" is not bulky (the 43's one is). It weighs more (and costs more, since it is made to Leica standards) but size is the same as the Sigma 2.8/19mm.

4 upvotes
Andy Crowe

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.

2 upvotes
McFern

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.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
nerd2

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.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
pdelux

"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.

6 upvotes
nerd2

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.

1 upvote
pdelux

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

Not entirely true, many prime lenses have obscure "nervous" OOF rendering not "creamy/dreamy" look, and non circular highlights. A Good quality prime lens should.

"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 was only referring to your previous comment when you compared how much more expensive a m43 system is for portrait to an FF system:

"keep a FF system for portraits than spending $900 on oly 75mm 1.8 and still get worse bokeh than FF one. both 35mm and 50mm nikkors (new ones) are sharp wide open"

I can only assume that you mean an FF body with 50 1.8 lens compared to a m43 body with 75mm 1.8. since you keep referring to it. the m43 combo will have better or just as good "bokeh" and less DOF than that FF combo, distance does not matter only composition/framing.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Gionni Dorelli

Sony is actually on the making of cameras that will move the sensor in order to focus.
Apparently it will focus also with almost any brand of lenses and with manual focus lenses.

0 upvotes
nerd2

Contax actually made one (anyone still remember contax? :D) and it didn't work well as far as I heard. Also I don't think the limited movement allowed for the sensor can cover all the focusing ranges of many lenses. That said, the technology itself can be doable (just extension of in-body IS) and it can help using MF lenses a lot.

2 upvotes
Frank_BR

"…lenses designed for phase detection need to be able to race to a specified location very quickly, whereas contrast detection lenses need to be able to scan back and forth very quickly." (DPR – On sensor detection)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An alternative to moving the lens is moving the sensor itself, as it was done by Panasonic and Canon in the so-called Piezo Autofocus used in prosumer camcorders in the 90s. In those cameras, the sensor was mounted on a piezoelectric actuator that moved forth and back with a frequency around 15 Hz. Despite using contrast detection, the piezo autofocus system provided almost instantly which direction the focusing in motor in the lens should rotate to reach perfect focus.

One can imagine that with the current technology it might be possible to design a high performance piezo autofocus for still cameras.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 33 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
artwine

I'm curious as to the feel of this camera. In other words, is it all cheap plasticky feeling? I had the Panny G6 and didn't like it for that reason. I'm torn between the upcoming Panny GX7 and the EM-1. If the EM-1 had a flip-up EVF, that would be the deal-maker for it. I also wish it had a built-in flash, but I can live with the fact that at least the camera comes with one you can slide on. I don't use flash much, but when I need it, I want to have it real handy - like built-in - or at least not have to carry around anything too big or have to buy it separately. The other little niggle is that neither the GX7 or the EM-1 have a flip-out LCD - I like having that for selfies. As usual, nothing seems to have it all.

0 upvotes
Andy Westlake

The E-M1 is about as far from 'cheap plasticky feeling' as you'll get in a camera this size. It's solid, all metal, and fully weather-sealed.
For selfies, just use Wi-Fi remote control from your smartphone.

15 upvotes
white shadow

Or you can just use the Lumix GF6. It is much cheaper, has a built-in flash, has a flip out LCD for self portraits and still is a Micro 4/3 camera.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Rockaw

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

3 upvotes
yabokkie

cheap plastic may be better than cheap metal.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
1 upvote
yabokkie

http://www.digitalcamera.jp/html/HotNews/image/2013-09/15/E-M1_20130914_058_L.jpg

http://www.digitalcamera.jp/html/HotNews/image/2013-09/15/E-M1_20130914_057_L.jpg

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Jason1972

Get someone to hit you over the head with the EM1, then get hit with a Nikon or Canon APS/C. You will feel your answer easily ;) lol

0 upvotes
Kay Fisher

AEB Question
Can you do AEB with the 2 second self timer?
This can't be done on the M5. How about the new M1?

Respectfully,
Kay Fisher

0 upvotes
photohounds

Interesting Kay,

I've never thought of that. I usually use a wire release - I think it gives more control

Have you tried using it with Burst mode?
It does one "set" while you hold down the remote release, and stops when the exposure set is done.

That's useful - you don't even have to count exposures!

:)

1 upvote
Andy Westlake

You can use bracketing with the 2 second self-timer, but the camera won't shoot all three frames automatically - instead you have to press the shutter button three times.

0 upvotes
Kay Fisher

Is that true on the EM-5 as well?

0 upvotes
Neodp

OK, look guys(and gals). If you don't like my opinion, then stop right now.

Finally improvements, and these are G R E A T. So go ahead, and call me all negative; but things are rarely all, or nothing, and the devils in the details.

m43 is still lacking in sensor competitiveness. This is a great platform, for the future; 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. But alas, we are not seeing a total balance, in new mirror-less APS based cams yet, either.

I'm waiting. If the camera industry can not get its head, out of its collective rear; then I will stay, with my old gear, and take better pictures anyway, until it does.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
Neodp

Some of you guys are going ape crazy; about nice new advancements, lower prices (GREAT!), and yet all to accepting, of miss-balanced (primary photographic benefits). I would just like to send a message to the manufactures; that they suck. Will they get it? Will they change. I don't know. But what I do know, is we are the buyers.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Neodp

...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.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
peevee1

"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.

11 upvotes
Fleabag

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

14 upvotes
vesa1tahti

Difference with the best APS-C applications, like Nikon D7100, is detectable, without instrumentation! Take ISO 6400 shots from the sky at night and compare results. D7100 do have much better low light / high ISO properties, that's the truth. Daytime low ISO images are on the same level, differences are visible in most demanding light conditions.

0 upvotes
McFern

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.

8 upvotes
artwine

My question is why Sony can stuff a full-sized sensor in the small RX-1, but no one else can give us that. It's like Apple; always dribbling out the features every year and forcing you to upgrade. You know they can give you a full frame sensor. It's obviously possible. So WTF? Give me this EM-1 with a full frame sensor, Mr. Olympus. Thank you.

0 upvotes
Oleg Vinokurov

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.

4 upvotes
Oleg Vinokurov

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.

1 upvote
McFern

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.

2 upvotes
T3

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.

5 upvotes
nerd2

Weight/volume saving of m43 SOLELY comes from the lack of mirror / short flange distance. Sony showed that if you get rid of mirror, you can make a FF camera with good, bright optics just as small as m43 cameras.

IS is not unique with m43. Basically ALL platform provides lens/body based IS/VR/OIS etc.

m43 lenses are actually rather expensive for what they give, and any modern FF lenses equally perform awesomely wide open. You don't need $3000 for razor this DOF either. Swallow DOF does matter for portraits, and that's why oly charge $900 for 75mm 1.8 lenses, which is DOUBLE the price of 85mm 1.8 AFS for FF. As a system FF is actually cheaper, if you are for portrait or low light photography.

0 upvotes
peevee1

"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.

Comment edited 56 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
McFern

IS is not unigue to Oly, nerd2, but body IS works with all lenses. For me (your mileage may differ) the 50mm f2 does it all, landscapes, available light, isolation shots, and hand held macro due to body IS. And it is the sharpest wide open where the depth of field is perfect for portraits. By the way, bought it in perfect condition used for $285.

0 upvotes
Adrian Van

Robin Wong now has photos taken from the original 43 lens with adaptor with EM1 on his robinwong.blogspot website. Worth checking out, and great photos with the high quality lenses. He comments on the speed of the 43 lens with EM1 including macro 50mm, 55-200mm and other lenses. Lots of image examples to see and read his user experience notes.

I am thinking that dpreview will have some more reviews on their own analysis in a later report and we look forward to any more info as it comes.

3 upvotes
MadManAce

imaging-resource dot com (IR) posted some test photos on their website. Compared to DPR, I always felt IR has better more controlled test scenes. With DPR the apertures are all over the place (EM-5 @ 4.5, E-M1 @ 5.6) and when one downloads the raw files from DPR, the luminance levels seem off between cameras. In other words, the jpeg shown on the website test scene are likely corrected for exposure. I downloaded the test samples from IR and open them with Olympus Viewer 3 making sure the settings were exactly the same.

2 upvotes
MadManAce

The E-M1 seems to require using 1/3 faster shutter speed to have proper exposure when compared to the E-M5. I assume it is a known fact that the ISO speeds on the E-M5 are off by nearly a full stop, so if the E-M1 requires a faster shutter speed, than the ISO values are likely closer to the real thing. When comparing both supposedly 6400 ISO images they appear similar, but if E-M1 is about 1/3 stop more accurate with ISO readings. That compounded with the histogram on the E-M1 being slightly more to the right, I am guessing the high ISO performance will be about 1/2 better.

2 upvotes
MadManAce

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.

6 upvotes
Macx

"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.

2 upvotes
yabokkie

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).

1 upvote
MadManAce

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.

4 upvotes
yabokkie

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

1 upvote
Macx

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.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
yabokkie

what's really in the ISO standard?

I think the standard have two parts, one basic rule (the exposure) and the other technical detail (density curves) on top of it.

many are distracted by the film response curves which should be really decided by film makers, what will give the best performance when the film receives a certain amount light.

maker advertised ISOs should not be used as any base for comparison and we just make sure same EV be used and ignore camera ISO (unless there is a certain ISO value that provides better image quality, then we just use that one regardless of the ISO number).

then makers won't be able to cheat, Olympus or anyone else.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Henry Richardson

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."

2 upvotes
Plastek

"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.

1 upvote
Macx

Plastek, I'm not quite sure I understand exactly what your accusation is, and what you base it on?

DPReview claims that the E-M5 overexposes their JPEGs by 1/3 of a stop, and while that's a discrepancy it's nothing close to the full stop that you're talking about.

It sounds a bit like you're looking at the DxOMark measurements, but if that is the case, your conclusion is wrong. Have a look at this article http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2845734946/behind-the-scenes-extended-highlights It should clear things up.

0 upvotes
photohounds

People who flaccidly try to equate amount of materials used in a lens to its price, are the same "thinkers" who think a Ferrrari should cost the same as an-150 truck.
After all the F-150 has MORE materials in it - so it is "better", right?

FACT is, the smaller you make something excellent, the MORE it costs (almost universally).

The f 0.95 DOF tirade is also getting stale (well it was a year ago).
I shot a theatre production this week, no DOF "issues" as imagined by pixel-peeping Bricks 'n' bazookas fans - none at all ...

To judge pictures instead of uninformed opinion:

At the link, select "performing arts", and "footloose", basically unprocessed except for density and a little NR ands I turn the camera NR off (better when there is smoke in the image).

Or here ...
http://photohounds.smugmug.com/Performing-arts/Footloose-Supa

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
zos xavius

Don't take this the wrong way, as these are all adequate, capable shots with nothing really wrong technically, but these pictures are all frankly uninteresting to me because nearly everything is in focus. I think a tighter shallow DOF would have made them more interesting IMO. Pictures need a sense of depth. I shoot aps-c and while for landscapes and scenes the extra dof is nice, but for portraits and people I'm always wanting less and less. I also prefer "bricks and bazookas" for other reasons too....

1 upvote
yabokkie

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.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
mapgraphs

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

1 upvote
yabokkie

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).

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
mapgraphs

Circle of yabokkie?

3 upvotes
attomole

Opening up the aperture wont make the sensor bigger Yabokkie

0 upvotes
peevee1

"People who flaccidly try to equate amount of materials used in a lens to its price, are the same "thinkers" who think a Ferrrari should cost the same as an-150 truck."

So you think a Ferrari is not overpriced for the name and exclusivity? Although Ferrari and a truck have different functions - unlike two cameras which have the same function - take pictures.

0 upvotes
yabokkie

there is good correlation between a lens' weight and price, like 1 USD per gram (though aperture area is a better factor).

statistics is not done using several samples
but an example may be
Canon 50/2.5, 280g, 299 USD,
Canon 50/1.8, 130g, 125 USD,
Canon 50/1.4, 290g, 349 USD,
(let's stop here and not go to the ripping-off 50/1.2L and 50/1.0L)

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie

sorry I just checked 50/1.4 went up to 399.

0 upvotes
ppastoris

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

1 upvote
photohounds

Everything is in focus? http://photohounds.smugmug.com/Performing-arts/Footloose-Supa - you mean there?

On a 4" phone screen perhaps? Of course, many are "crew cuts", as it is politically correct to get an image of everyone or "chance shots" as sometimes that is all you get.
The detail in the originals, is excellent considering the light.

I don't use an 85/1.2 any more. Too heavy, too unwieldy to get unusual angle shots and quite soft until about 2.8, so in effect isn't really 'faster' at all. There's also the little matter of 1-1/3 stops lower shutter speeds = more motion blur.

Overall the EM-5 is a great tool for many jobs. It is also great for inexperienced models - so much less intimidating that I shoot it in preference most times. Being compact is often a boon.

Looking seriously at EM-1

0 upvotes
attomole

@ ppastoris
The thing is I don't think this is really true (Not Yabokkie with certain caveats he is correct) but the extent to which image quality is compromised doesn't matter, in normal lighting there is loads of S/N and DR even though other systems offer more, (however its measurably not far off Canon's APSC sensors), people do accept that, unless you are of the mindset or industry where more is always better.Image quality is not an absolute, is it good enough for the job. when i am appreciating a photograph I am not counting photons.

" iAlso impressive that the same people seem to be unable or unwilling to comprehend what is very clearly presented here by yabokkie -- mage 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)."

Comment edited 58 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
coroander

Nice to see a camera that opens up great performance with some missing lenses in the micro four thirds lineup. Lenses like the superb 150mm (300mm equiv.) f/2.0. That and the 6 or 7 extra controls (providing direct access to everthing) over the E-M5 should make this one great camera.

2 upvotes
slncezgsi

Just concerning the fine detail in the M1 captures vs E5 - I am not really seeing here much of difference - contrary to my expectations. It makes me wonder as the M1 does not have AA filter and the E5 does.

0 upvotes
Ullrich72

Nice new camera, good tones and colours, so small. Still waiting for a digital F3 from Nikon.

0 upvotes
Les Wilk

So is the future four thirds lenses or micro four thirds lenses, I am not sure if this feature to accept four thirds lens is designed for backward compatibility or for future compatibility ?

I wish Sony would bring out an RX-1 with interchangeable lens and we would all be reading that forum and not this one !

0 upvotes
bluevellet

Development of new Four Thirds lenses has ceased some years ago although production continues on the old designs. Eventually, production will stop as well.

As good as FT lenses were, things have changed in the last 10 years. M43 is more popular than FT ever was, AF with contrast detect (M43) can be as fast or faster than phase detection (FT) and M43 allows for smaller optics of equal or greater quality than FT.

And there's a heavily rumored Sony NEX FF system just over the horizon but be prepare to break the bank with an entry price of 3000 bucks with slow primes (F2.8 or slower) available initially.

2 upvotes
zos xavius

Its true development has stopped on 4/3 lenses, but I think 4/3 lens owners would argue that they still have no equals out there in m4/3 land. Seeing as how the mount is abandoned, now would be the best time to buy them up since it seems olympus will at least support them on newer m4/3 bodies with pdaf. I know a few people that still use 4/3 glass on m43 cameras because they prefer the 4/3 glass. A bunch of people were really hoping for an e-7 because they have thousands invested in 4/3 glass and were promised repeatedly that they have a future. I wonder how they feel....

0 upvotes
G Davidson

Just looking at the extreme amount of comments is telling. It seems there is a strong interest in m4/3, even if the time when just the right model to really take off is still to come.

One thing holding them back is the lack of pro use to aspire to. To my mind, with all the latest models offer, all they need are some very bright (f0.95-1.2), autofocusing affordable primes and there will be no need for using a larger format.

2 upvotes
yabokkie

50/0.95 should be very bright for full-frame
25/0.95 should be a cheap handy prime for 4/3" as 50/1.8.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
rikyxxx

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

16 upvotes
BeaniePic

Can't agree. The larger format works better for me as shooting with a smaller camera is just to difficult. Not saying things won't change but just not that quickly...

0 upvotes
Damien from Lyon France

bright (0,95-1,8) are already there
there is already few usage of larger format (except maybe the 36Mpix in some cases)
try it you'll be surprised

0 upvotes
photohounds

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 ....

1 upvote
zos xavius

25/0.95 in m4/3...cheap....riiiiiiight

funny thing is...its still 25, so less dof than 50, plus m4/3...so you'd still not get the equivalent of 50 f/2.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie

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.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
rikyxxx

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.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
5 upvotes
yabokkie

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

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
ppastoris

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).

1 upvote
rikyxxx

2 ppastoris

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

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
1 upvote
ppastoris

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.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
pdelux

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.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
ppastoris

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.

1 upvote
rikyxxx

ppastoris,

had you spent more of your time taking picture instead of annoying people with things they already know (it doesn't take a lot of time multiplying a number by 2) you'd know that what impact most a lens price is its quality, both optical and build.

Saying that a lens shouldn't cost 1000$ (that will probably become 800$ quite soon) because of its FF equivalent aperture is just stupid.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 39 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
rikyxxx

P.S.
I still have to see a 24-XX zoom for FF, regardless of its aperture, that is as good as my Zuiko 12-60.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Plastek

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.

1 upvote
rikyxxx

Nobody use a 24-xx zoom for DOF control.

1 upvote
Rockaw

I think that people are missing it when they complain about the $1399 price point. It's a bargain.

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. The D4 has much better video modes, but seriously, nobody buys a D4 to shoot video anyway. It's a still machine.

http://blog.mingthein.com/2013/09/11/the-2013-olympus-om-d-e-m1-review-2/#more-6942

He also proves that the 5 axis IS is better than anything that Canon or Nikon has done in the lens. His gallery of 1 and 2 second handheld images is pretty amazing.

I know there is a lot of love by the fanboys for FF sensors (I make my living with a 5D3 - so I'm not one of them) but from what I'm seeing, I could use the new E-M1 to replace 95% of the shots I make with the 5D3.

Here's the most telling comparison:
http://j.mp/1aKr7Hm

38 upvotes
lighthunter80

So true what you say.
I got a 5D2 and nice L glass but sold my 35, 50 and 135 (kept only 85mm and a 16-35 zoom) just because I don't want to carry around the bulky stuff anymore.

I am a bokeh and shallow DOF lover but with my new E-P5 and some fast primes I don't miss the Canon anymore. I never thought I could be without the FF DSLR but times change...

Ideal would be a Pen type of camera and FF sensor if it is possible to build this not too bulky. The Sony RX1 seems to be that ideal compromise but yet with fixed lens.

My new alternative portrait kit versus the old one
http://j.mp/1aKt7iX

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
19 upvotes
McFern

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.

11 upvotes
DarkShift

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.

9 upvotes
white shadow

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.

7 upvotes
BeaniePic

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.

1 upvote
nerd2

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)

2 upvotes
peevee1

"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.

2 upvotes
kbryd

I bought OMD-EM5 and just one month later I am selling it.

I don't understand that hype around M43 cameras. For example I can see noise on ISO 200 images. EOS M's (which I own) ISO 200 is noise free. I don't even mention bokeh - EOS M is much better here due to a bigger sensor.

Regarding lenses, there are a few good prime lenses, but come on, 450 bucks for 25mm/1.4? Even Canon 50/1.4 is cheaper! And there is also much cheaper Canon 50mm/1.8 which is also great, not mentioning 40mm/2.8 (also superb lens, for only $200). I was looking for a good travel zoom lens, and there is one: Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8, it costs only...$1300. I can buy Canon 24-105/4L IS for LESS. So where are those high quality and cheap M43 lenses?

1 upvote
miiicho

Thanks for the link. Really nice comparison. The M1 looks really superior to M5 in lots of photographic results. Although the price tag is quite tough (but justified). At least for me who doesn't make living out of it. Gotta see if oly comes with lite/mini version of M1, I'm still enjoying my e-pl1 until then :)

0 upvotes
miiicho

@kbryd: I don't suppose you will find same materials in 'kit' lenses and high grade lenses. The special materials (like low dispersion glass, higt antireflex coatings, aspherical shapes ...) ARE expensive. For example I have paid EUR300 just for my two plastic lenses for my glasses (yes that's freak'n 150 per glass) - you can get both lenses for EUR50 if made from glass, even cheaper without antireflex, but optical quality won't be excellent.
I've moved from my kit lens (40-150) to zuiko 50-200 and the difference if visible.

0 upvotes
McFern

kbyrd...
The actual crop factor for 4/3 is 1.85 and the actual crop factor for eos-m is 1.6...Really? I'll quit laughing in a minute...

0 upvotes
millardmt

Why do Americans -- and, yes, I am one -- so doggedly insist that a "proper" camera be shaped like an SLR? I read about the cheap, plastic, hollow SONY a3000 (for example) and I almost feel pity for the major camera manufacturers. The evidence of their marketing research must be inescapable. (The irony is that Yoshihisa Maitan, the original designer of the Olympus OM-1 and the PEN, was an innovator who followed his own instincts; now, decades later, Olympus slavishly follows his precedent with nary a step out of line.)

It frustrates me that American shoppers are so unsophisticated that they can be enthralled by form alone, without regard to function. (I will exempt those of us who follow DPR inasmuch as, ipso facto, we are concerned with substance.) Just as it shames me that I can see the evidence of American ignorance in a much broader context every time I pick up a newspaper.

Looks aside, I really, really want this camera, but there's no way I can afford it! It is quality!

11 upvotes
Henry Richardson

It is a common misconception here and you have succumbed to it also. I don't know why so many think that Olympus and Sony are American companies. I guess the people who think that are very provincial and don't realize that there is a big, wide world out there. Olympus and Sony are Japanese companies.

2 upvotes
millardmt

Say what? No, I must have been unclear myself. I am indeed a great fan of Japanese-designed, Japanese-MADE gear! In fact, I have a whole closet full of old 1970's Nikon equipment that I cherish most deeply. (It's the newer, made-in-Thailand, Nikon stuff that I usually find disinteresting.)

0 upvotes
zos xavius

Maybe people prefer SLRs. Some people even prefer view cameras. The SLR has become the dominant form for decades because it has no equal. EVFs are getting close, but still cannot match a DSLR in terms of response, resolution, and low light usage. Composing at night is so much easier through a bright pentaprism IMO. So I guess I'm just an unsophisticated american who prefers an optical path to the lens. BTW, JAPANESE companies design these cameras. Clearly the SLR has demand in Asia too...

that all said this is a nicely designed camera. choice is a good thing.

Comment edited 47 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
millardmt

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.

1 upvote
BYRON MCD 77-81

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.

1 upvote
Henry Richardson

The A3000, E-M1, and E-M5 are sold in countries all over the world. For some reason you seem to think these cameras are designed by Americans and only sold in America. Actually, I think I read that the E-M5 is more popular outside of America.

0 upvotes
millardmt

My point exactly.

0 upvotes
millardmt

Byron, your motorcycle analogy is a good one: Look at all the crap that's been produced by an industry trying too cater to the poseur "cruiser" crowd. (I ride a Triumph -- an OLD Triumph!)

Henry, I sincerely hope you're right that the U.S. is not that important in driving camera design. It's just that I am so tired of reading in a camera's specifications that it is "SLR" style, or "Rangefinder" style -- when it's neither!
If you were around in the old days, you too would be offended by the current vogue of camouflaging a camera in wholly inappropriate garb. It's a waste of resources and it bespeaks an inflexibility imposed by marketers that's inherently at odds with innovation.

0 upvotes
Henry Richardson

You wrote: "Why do Americans -- and, yes, I am one -- so doggedly insist that a "proper" camera be shaped like an SLR?" The E-M5 is one of those cameras shaped like an SLR yet is even more popular outside the U.S. You seem to be attempting to make a very muddled, confused point. I still can't make heads nor tails of it since you are all over the (world) map. :-) Oh well, I suppose you know what you mean. lol

I just read your latest post and replied below.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Henry Richardson

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

1 upvote
T3

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

1 upvote
millardmt

"It is actually Japanese camera companies and Japanese designers that you are upset with."

NO - I am NOT. It is the morons who comprise focus groups that I'm upset about.

Like I said, forget it.

However, I thank everyone who's commented.

Comment edited 43 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
richard stern

I'd like to see how the E-M1 with a Panasonic 100-300 m4/3 lens compares to a D7000 with a 300 f4 and a 1.4TC, I.e. twice the total weight and size, for BIF in terms of auto-focus and image quality.

Richard

3 upvotes
Steve_

One would have to imagine the AF system of the E-M1 is more highly optimized for the Olympus 75-300 than the Panasonic 100-300.

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
matt_nnn

@dpreview:
I am a NikonD300 user and sometimes a little frustrated about the missing DX lenses.
So I am interested to know how the C-AF compares to the D300?

0 upvotes
Henry Richardson

A very good catch was posted in the link below and it is also a good point concerning the description of the Canon 70D LV AF and Olympus E-M1 AF with 4/3 lenses and adaptor:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52155871

Maybe the wording used in the 70D and E-M1 articles is just sloppy or maybe there is a strange inconsistency. Is the 70D AF disappointing or is the E-M1 similar to the 70D and "essentially as fast and accurate as conventional, optical-viewfinder phase-detect AF"? Thanks for clarifying this.

2 upvotes
mapgraphs

The money quote from the 70D Preview:

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-70d/3

"This, of course, is the million-dollar question - technology can be as conceptually clever as you like, but ultimately all that matters is whether it works in the real world. So far we've only had our hands on a non-final EOS 70D for a relatively short time, but our initial impressions are pretty positive. With the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM kit zoom, the camera is clearly much faster and more decisive at focusing in Live View than any previous EOS - or indeed any other SLR."

0 upvotes
white shadow

Tested a production unit of the 70D with the 18-55mm f 3.5-5.6 IS STM which is selling in the shops.

The combo is superb, compact for a DSLR, nice to hold and focuses fast on LV as well as through the viewfinder. Try it when you have the opportunity.

Works perfectly fine with full frame lens too like the superb Canon 24mm f/1.4L Mk2 and the 28mm f/2.8 IS.

You can also go to: cameralabs.com for more information.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
DarkShift

I don't doubt that 24/1.4 L lens wouldn't work great on Canon APS.

But does it make much sense? With 70D its focal length matches 38mm eq. and essentially you'd crop the full potential of this high quality FF wide angle lens. Why not just stick it with FF body?

It's also much more bulkier and larger than dedicated lens for smaller formats. For m43 Lumix 20/1.7 weights only 100g and does its job admirably despite being 5 times cheaper lens. For shallower DOF there's excellent Nokton 17.5/0.95 which is still much smaller and cheaper than high speed L series primes.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
white shadow

I do not expect a newbie to buy a new 24mm f/1.4L Mk2 to be used on his new 70D. Most owners of professional grade primes would already have a full frame DSLR. The 70D can be used as a lighter second body if he wants to travel lighter without having to buy a new system like a micro 4/3. All his prime lenses can do double duty to achieve excellent images.

However, for some, it is not a problem to have a smaller system as well. The Micro 4/3 system is a good choice. By the way, I use a Lumix GF1 with the 14-45mm f3.5-5.6 zoom, the Voightlander 25mm f0.95, 20mm f/1.7 and the 45mm f/1.8 for my travel to difficult places.

For the average user, he would most likely just choose one system or even just one camera.

0 upvotes
philosomatographer

I think it makes perfect sense to use the Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II lens on an APS-C crop sensor. This lens has a record-setting 4 STOPS of vignetting in the corners (think f/5.6 in the corners, f/1.4 in the centre) on FF, so only on a crop sensor will it render a reasonable evenly-lit field.

The Olympus f/2.0 zoom have less than 1 stop of vignetting in the corners at f/2.0, and much higher resolution. Olympus thought the matter through when they picked a smaller sensor, and Canon/Nikon's failed attempts to make evenly-rendering lenses on FF are proof of this.

0 upvotes
Mirrorless _ user

By far this is the best m43 camera for shots. Solved the great problem of continuous AF. OK its CAF it is not 10 point, BUT it sure is 8.5 or 9 . Good for the 1º m43 camera with a usable CAF. Keep going Oly !!

7 upvotes
Fleabag

Do you have a critically sharp images shot in CAF to share? I have not seen one I would call sharp.

0 upvotes
petepictures

Why change the comparison scene , the older one was perfect.

7 upvotes
JEROME NOLAS

I wish I could afford this camera and I wonder how many people will actually buy it, because of the price...So what's next for Olympus with more pro features and better performance? More expensive? I think they got as far as possible with m4/3 and the future is APS-C or FF...any thoughts?

0 upvotes
bluevellet

What's next is the direct successor of the E-M5 and a budget model with no weather-sealing and simpler IBIS. Rumors heavily point this way.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
M DeNero

What's next is bankruptcy and a fire sale of all proprietary technology. Give it a year.

0 upvotes
bluevellet
7 upvotes
vesa1tahti

Oly is from the past. Buy APS-C or FF- Nikons, and you are happy. Cheers.

3 upvotes
rikyxxx

I really hate when people tell me what to do, think or buy. Don't you have something better to do? Is so sad your life? Come on...

33 upvotes
ThomasSwitzerland

One fares good in life to listen. Uneasy and contrarian views give hints to make better decisions. And APS-C and FF are things to consider strongly.

Also in my opinion: Oly is on the death row, and that must be allowed to say.

0 upvotes
rikyxxx

Contrarian views?!?! Oh my God... " Buy APS-C or FF- Nikons, and you are happy" is just a slogan, as bad as useless.
_ _ _

"Oly is on the death row"
Just because you wish it doesn't mean it will happen...

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
13 upvotes
bluevellet

More often than not on the Internet, a troll is just a troll. No redeeming value.

13 upvotes
Optimal Prime

Go chew on some APS-C or FF lens cap.

4 upvotes
Rbrt

As Sun Tsu once wrote: "The one in the room who says the least has the most power."

3 upvotes
vesa1tahti

From Photographyblog.com: ''One of the big selling points of the new OM-D E-M1 camera, at least according to Olympus, is its size in comparison with an equivalent DSLR. To illustrate this point, Olympus literally weighed the E-M1 and the Nikon D7100 on the same set of scales, together with three lenses each. The D7100 with the 24-70mm, 10-24mm and the 105mm lenses weighed in at 2765g, whilst the E-M1 and the 12-40mm, 9-18mm and the 75mm lenses came in at a mere 1348g, half the weight of its Nikon rival.''

Weight and size, the only reasons to purchase Oly? And Oly now says that IQ from D7100 is on the same level. But the difference in the sensor size...

0 upvotes
DarkShift

@vesa1tahti

Difference in sensor size is not too much compared to Nikon DX, only 2.6mm in vertical direction. 24x36mm sensor is 2.36X larger than DX sensor which is MUCH more than difference between EM-1 and Nikon D7100 sensors.

Advantages of EM-1 include higher frame rate (10 fps vs. 6 fps), larger buffer, faster X-Sync speed (1/320 vs 1/250), better build quality, tiltable screen (fixed in D7100), higher viewfinder magnification, built in IBIS and built in WIFI.

And last but not least EM-1 exhibits much cooler design ;)

As I already own Nikon D800, DSLR style APS-C cameras look very boring in comparison and don't offer significantly better IQ than the EM-5 or EM-1.

7 upvotes
vesa1tahti

Accepted! I own D7000 and soon D7100, too. Can't say anything of the build quality. Cooler design: I like DSLR size cameras, somebody else like smaller. Both are cool enough, for their users. Happy weekend to everybody!!!

3 upvotes
gerard smits

Never Nikon, dont like!! TROLL

0 upvotes
Cam Jones

it's not just about comparing camera bodies. there is also that matter called "lenses". Olympus can never be equal to Nikon or Canon lenses.

0 upvotes
bluevellet

Yes, lenses, Olympus' eternal achille's heel. It's a small miracle they made a buck for all those years with their vaseline-smudged optics. Sites like this one have been giving them a pass for way too long, calling them "jewels" and "sharpest ever". Who are they kidding?

4 upvotes
King Penguin

Lenses - eternal weakness........wrong, the smaller 1/4 sized sensor is eternal weakness

0 upvotes
Spunjji

I love how every comment is bookended by trolls talking complete bollocks. Olympus lenses, blurry? Hahaha! Go home.

0 upvotes
Dr_Jon

You say "Which isn't to say the focus is bad - our first impressions are that the performance is consistent with Canon's EOS 70D, which offers some of the best live view focus of a conventional DSLR. However, for the very best performance, the E-M1 should be used with Micro Four Thirds lenses."
Am I correct in assuming you mean in LV mode, or do you mean with the mirror-down?

0 upvotes
Adrian Van

They were only referring to EM1 will have faster performance with m43 lens over 43 lens with adaptor, not referring to 70D or other DSLRs. However, 43 lens are now somewhat faster than before on this new camera. How fast? Tests need to be done to compare to E5 DSLR.

0 upvotes
Dr_Jon

Err, the bit in quotes mentioning the 70D is from their text!

I think some 43 users will care whether it's as good as or better than the E5 (which isn't that fast by modern standards), especially if they have a lot of the high-end 43 glass. Most people want to know how it compares to modern equivalent-priced DSLRs, plus m43, to find out if they can add the 43 lenses to the list they can consider getting. (If you have an E-M5 and want better quality longer glass should you get an E-M1 plus 43 glass or a 7D and L glass, for example.)

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Adrian Van

Perhaps you are right. I am curious which of the liveviews is better or faster, the new Canon 70D, or the EM1 liveview with m43 lenses or 43 (I would guess EM1). What we do know is that the 5 axis system of the EM1 works great in liveview and this would also be very helpful at quite slow shutter speeds as reported. Does image stabilization work well with 70D (for lenses or body). The STM lenses I know are optimized for the 70D camera for quiet video use.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Dr_Jon

STM lenses are really best for video, the USM lenses are still the speed kings for stills, especially the ring USM ones (most of the better ones).

I don't know about IBIS (I have a GH3) but the Canon IS is still the best lens stabilisation I've seen (despite lots of publicity by the assorted competition), it's certainly better than my Panasonic lenses (14-140, 12-35, 35-100).

One thing Canon are doing is making a lot of shorter lenses with IS, you don't really need this for still photography but it's essential for hand-held video. (Although I have given up using my 5DmkII for video and it's just the GH3 now, but the 5DmkII stills do have better IQ than the GH3. Plus Canon still make lots of lenses you can't get in m43, and won't for a long time.)

BTW with Canon LV is for video (hopefully) and use the OVF and PDAF for stills, e.g. see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHhvvN4_RTk&feature=em-uploademail for a 7D in action.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
McFern

Now for something really important. If I buy this camera, it will be the 4th power switch location I will have to get used to. But such is the cost of moving forward.

1 upvote
Camera Jedi

I'm certainly interested to see how it performs having owned the OMD originally. I did however swap to the Nikon D600 which although heavier isnt that much larger in practical terms if used with one of the smaller 50mm primes. Both require a bag or shoulder strap niether are going to fit in a pocket, in fact the OMD was too small. The EM1 is larger which I think is important but I think untill the sensor grows people will always knock it. The OMD was great but got limited in darker available light shots, the D600 just has way more going on in the dark. I do however miss the EVF as having a true preview of the finished shot is so handy. Perhaps one day some one will combine all these attributes.

0 upvotes
dw2001

love these focus tracking test where you shoot at like F22 and absolutely everything in the frame is in focus...that really gives you an idea of how the focus tracking performs....

3 upvotes
tjbates

I try to avoid a smaller aperture (higher f stop) than f5.6 on m4/3 due to diffraction. Good thing many m4/3 lenses have fantastic performance wide open.

0 upvotes
bluevellet

"The lens used was the M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm 1:2.8 Macro, and all of the images were shot at F2.8."

13 upvotes
dw2001

still everything in the entire frame is in focus..focus tracking FTW!...m43 cameras don't need focus tracking since the DOF = infinity at all apertures! this test is ONLY showing that.

2 upvotes
tjbates

yeah right dw2001 - whatever.

17 upvotes
BJL

Look at the full resolution images by clicking on the small downsized ones displayed in the web page: the OOF effect is clear, and looking at the ground, the plane of focus is clearly at the front of the horse, very near the plane of its eyes whee it should be.

Of course tiny downsized "web thumbnail" images show lots of DOF.

5 upvotes
Mirrorless _ user

jajaj ... dw2001 we did not know that you were so so so so so "intelligent" jajajajajajajajjajajaj aaaaaaaaa ajajajjajajajaj !!!

2 upvotes
Mirrorless _ user

YES dw2001, all we think that YOU are REALLY "inteligent"........................... :) :) :))))

1 upvote
ntsan

Cameralab done the tracking test using 90-250mm F2.8 for those bokeh naysayers

0 upvotes
yabokkie

@dw2001, small aperture is one of the reasons we get panfocus, another one is small magnification.

a racing horse is about 6 ft tall or taller. then a tightest frame will be about max 0.014x magnification (equiv.), maybe 0.007x with room overhead and the ground.

Comment edited 51 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
King Penguin

Ok it sure is a cute and attractive camera with great form and controls............but why would you purchase this when for the same(ish) money you can have a camera with a sensor FOUR, yes that's right, FOUR times the area, ie, a Nikon D600.

2 upvotes
King Penguin

It's like buying a Ferrari with a Fiat engine!

Am I right or am I right?

2 upvotes
babalu

@King Penguin : yes, you're wrong .

23 upvotes
rikyxxx

Actually Ferrari cars are made by Fiat.

11 upvotes
Stu 5

So King Penguin why do some pros buy the D4 over the D800 then?

3 upvotes
Oleg Vinokurov

This probably will never end, comparing only sensor size and completely ignoring everything else. Doubt listing why people, for example me, would like to buy this over ff D600 will change anything.

4 upvotes
tjbates

In 2013 bigger does not necessarily mean better. Come on guys keep up!

5 upvotes
Gliderg

King Penguin,

you are right!
Why would you purchase a Porsche 911 when with the same money you can buy a big Caterpillar excavator with four time the power?
I really don't get it... 😃

Comment edited 42 seconds after posting
14 upvotes
Seagull TLR

Fiat Group-owned Ferrari.

0 upvotes
McFern

For the same reason Galen Rowell chose Nikon 35 over lugging 4X5 into the wilderness. We all have our reasons for what we choose. And Galen could take a smart phone and make us look insignificant shooting FF or 4X5. It is and always has been the photographer that is important. The camera is a tool...like a hammer. Wonder how many hammer blogs there are?

5 upvotes
WACONimages

I'm a full-time professional photographer and I'm really getting tired about all that big sensor versus small(let) sensor discussion. Get over it! Camera's are just gear! to make a great pic on vacation, you wife/girlfriend, art-photography, sports, whatever you try to achieve with you creative mind. I had several front-page pics shot with a Lumix LX-3 compact camera. Sometimes full frame will do the job best, other times not! What brand, sort of gear, sensor sizes etc are all 'toys' to achieve what you had in mind or needed for an assignment. Go out there and take great pics! With your iPhone, hq compact, MFT, full-frame or Hasselblad. Happy shooting!

11 upvotes
m87501

You're spot-on WACON, and with a 13" printer (or even 17"), a few tweaks from the raw file including proper sharpening, most could not tell the difference in the final print from any of these cameras. (edit: most)

Comment edited 14 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
ahaack

Yes, you are Wrong! The sensor of your D600 is TWICE as big as 4/3 not FOUR times. And you have a package with (e.g. With my 20mm Panasonic lens ) that slips in a coat pocket an can be carried every where without much. And it has excellence image quality and better color processing Nikon. There is no point in a good camera if you do not carry it around. For a pro it the size does not matter with all the other gear he carries. For a pro performance is all.

0 upvotes
Oleg Vinokurov

Don't confuse crop factor with sensor size, m43 is actually four times smaller than FF.

1 upvote
McFern

WACONimages understands, Oleg does not. It doesn't matter. Actually, an 8X10 out of FF is 720 sqmm vs 211 out of 4/3, ergo the actual real world difference is 3.4123 who cares. The best camera is the one you have with you and the most important thing is the connection between that part between your ears and that place where you feel what you see.

0 upvotes
Oleg Vinokurov

McFern, i think it's you who doesn't understand, all i mentioned is mistake in sensor size by ahaack. To be really exact, the difference between ff sensor 36x24mm and e-m1 at 17.3x13mm is 3.85, certainly not 2x smaller. Did i say anything about cameras at all or that e-m1 is bad choice?

If you actually checked all replies to this topic, you would see, that i prefer m43 myself and would like to get e-m1. I wanted e-p5, but now leaning more and more towards e-m1 even if it's a bit more expensive in kit with 12-40. Anyway i will have to wait few months, might as well squeeze out a bit more budget for my hobby. Ergonomics of e-m1 are certainly far superior to e-p5

0 upvotes
McFern

Sorry Oleg, wasn't making a personal attack and please forgive me. Im only speaking for the fact that sensor size or pixel count or the alignment of the planets does not matter in photography. If I came off as judging you it was not my intention, it just does not matter whether the sensor is 2x smaller, 4x smaller, or 3.4123x smaller. Hope we're still friends.

0 upvotes
Oleg Vinokurov

Sensor size sure matters for photography. m43, FF, medium format or any other size have their own strengths and weakness, some formats can do things that others can't or do it better. Different formats also have quite big difference in lens choice.

Though comments like one from King Penguin are way too silly, simply because D600 does have 4x bigger sensor doesn't mean that it is a better buy for everyone. Even if D600 was twice as cheap as e-m1, still would have zero interest in it.

0 upvotes
McFern

And thats my point, it does not matter for photography for it only matters for comparing. I can visibly see the difference between my medium format prints and my 35 prints, but only when they hang side by side. But even then, I can not see the difference between the 6X7 and the 645s, between the Rollies and the Fujis, between the Nikons and the Pentaxs, or between the 35s, APS-C, and 4/3. Size, sharpness of extreme crops, diffraction don't matter. Weight, size, and location of power switch do matter. The simplest camera is better than any photographer. Folks are complaining in these pages about the sensor being biased to red. Really? All films from the film days were biased to one color or the other. You learned from shooting and exploited it or learned to work around it. Comparing has to do with the matter between the ears but nothing to do with the connection between the matter between the ears and the place where we feel what we see. That is where photography comes from.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
babalu

It's attractive because it's loaded with features resembling pro grade cameras, without yet being one. Its huge EVF marks a new minimal standard, and will be a musthave in camera bodies to come. It reminds me somehow of the success of the Nikon F4.

4 upvotes
ThomasSwitzerland

Sensors today are driven by software algorithms, not much room left for market diffentiation to Oly, therefore the design limbo. Olympus now with the EM-1 remind me of a Ford-T car model with a turbo engine built in. I had been a loyal Olympus user from the OM-1 up to the digital “3”.

To me this Olympus now is bad taste in design with la-la-technology for a Leica-like pricing strategy. I still have one Oly 11-22mm lens left which I fit to my Panasonic, that’s it. IQ compares to any other brand like Canon or Nikon, equal or less. Oly do not have a secret and only appeal to a very specific niche market. They are not on the road for major market growth.

4 upvotes
Photomonkey

So they are all the same but Oly has fancy design. I guess that makes it like all the others. Except the others don't have fancy design?
So what you are saying is that Oly feels their fancy design is worth more money. I noticed this worked for Apple.
Major market growth may not be necessary, they want to be profitable.
Don't take pricing so personally, it makes you sound like you really want the camera except for their greed.

6 upvotes
ThomasSwitzerland

Hi Photomonkey
Apple still got huge cash reserves. Even after Steve Job’s departure they got financial muscle.

Oly almost were bankrupt. They do no more have the resources (blown into the wind before) for heavy long term investments into Cameras. They also do not have the brand recognition as a Leica to make a “crocodile leather” item with red dot on it for x-times the material value. Therefore, under my personal opinion, the long-term outlook for Oly cameras (except their medical division) is bleak, not investment grade. Even Canon and Nikon must be very careful not to fall behind with their aging cameras.

True innovations and market initiatives come from Samsung, Sony, maybe Nokia with Microsoft etc. having the deep pockets and gambling potential necessary. Therefore, I will be into those kind of hardware/software solutions.

1 upvote
ImagesInstyle

Incredible how all this social media, and blogs commenting has taken photography from an art form, to a worthless political areana!.

you can fight back and forth to your fingers hurt from typing, but
photography, no matter what camera you use, will always be about
capturing the moment...wether in manual (which how photography began)
or auto focus mode...Period..go shoot, and STFU..

22 upvotes
SkiHound

Agree completely. Using an analogy, if the comments on new camera releases were pixels, we'd be seeing a whole lot of noise and not much signal.

4 upvotes
Olymguy

Still EM-1 suffers from red colour oversaturation despite its other good attributes.

2 upvotes
declan79

As a dual Olympus shooter both 43&mft, at this particular additional information about af with ft lens already made plans to sold what I've and wait for this em1

0 upvotes
Total comments: 2063
34567