Previous page Next page

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review

Buy on GearShop$1,399.0024 deals


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
Our favorite products. Free 2 day shipping.
Support this site, buy from dpreview GearShop.
Olympus OM-D E-M1

Comments

Total comments: 2127
678910
Jim in Hudson
By Jim in Hudson (7 months ago)

Has anyone seen a spec for low light AF sensitivity? Below 0 EV?

Looking forward to seeing how focus tracking performs in some real world tests by DPR.

1 upvote
brendon1000
By brendon1000 (7 months ago)

^^ The Canon 6D can focus upto -3 EV. :)

0 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (7 months ago)

Jim I am after the same info. Nobody seems to be listing it yet. Weird and annoying.

0 upvotes
Jon Ragnarsson
By Jon Ragnarsson (7 months ago)

I'm just happy that we have a camera news on the front page

5 upvotes
Lab D
By Lab D (7 months ago)

The em1 has sparked my interest. from the number of comments and the stats on the right side of this page I am not the only one. Exciting times.

0 upvotes
sarkozy
By sarkozy (7 months ago)

my old "UR- K-5" still rocks the scene ;)

0 upvotes
electrophoto
By electrophoto (7 months ago)

meh

0 upvotes
Fleabag
By Fleabag (7 months ago)

I wish Olympus would roll out new cameras at a faster rate just so I could read the comments.

9 upvotes
JeanPierre Thibaudeau
By JeanPierre Thibaudeau (7 months ago)

Very nice preview of a great camera.

DPR staff, you forgot to include ISO 6400 for the E-M-1 on the "image quality" page.

Thanks.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (7 months ago)

Please clear the cache on your browser - it is in there.

0 upvotes
jforkner
By jforkner (7 months ago)

Would love to see some high-ISO shots of the night sky. Also some downloadable RAW images, ideally of the same. For me, that's been an Oly shortfall.

0 upvotes
cocopro
By cocopro (7 months ago)

Olympus should sell EM1 @ $2000, cause whoever is paying $1400 for it wouldn't mind $600 more, and there will still be tons of comments trying to justify the price.

1 upvote
pdelux
By pdelux (7 months ago)

Congratulations you understand supply and demand economics 101.

2 upvotes
Petrogel
By Petrogel (7 months ago)

It's good to see Olympus back on track !!!!

3 upvotes
PerL
By PerL (7 months ago)

Looks nice, more ergonomic than OM-D, but high price compared to high end APS-C competition which has true OVFs, probably better AF-C and upgrade path to FF.

2 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (7 months ago)

The idea of an 'upgrade path to FF' has always interested me.

None of the lenses you have on APS-C will behave in the way you're used to them doing (if they work at all). Sure, a tele-zoom will still be a(n effectively shorter) tele-zoom, but everything else?

If you've bought flashguns and other accessories, I can see the benefit of staying in-system, but I wonder to what degree it's mainly in the manufacturers' interests that you feel there's an 'upgrade path' you can/should(?) take.

13 upvotes
PerL
By PerL (7 months ago)

Well, for instance a 70-200 2.8 is a great match for a high end APS-C but also for a FF. You can build a lens collection without locking yourself in a format if you choose strategically.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
3 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (7 months ago)

Most APS-C DSLR users don't use APS-C only lenses. For example, an APS-C shooter will almost certainly own a 50 f/1.4 or 1.8, 70-200 f/2.8 or f/4, an 85 f/1.8 portrait lens, and perhaps a dedicated macro lens, most of which are FF. Such a user has an almost effortless transition and a clear upgrade path to FF.

5 upvotes
Beat Traveller
By Beat Traveller (7 months ago)

I don't know where you lot hang out, but almost everyone I know or see with an APS-C camera uses kit zoom lenses that are incompatible with FF cameras.

Even one of my mates who shot with APS-C for years and finally upgraded to FF basically bought a whole new suite of lenses to match the new camera.

11 upvotes
PerL
By PerL (7 months ago)

My post was about high end APS-C, the likely competition for the new Oly. A 70-200 2.8 is a common choice for many ambitious photographers, a cornerstone for sports and action.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (7 months ago)

> almost everyone I know or see with an APS-C camera uses kit zoom lenses

And the kit zoom is one of the few APS-C only lenses needed other than an UWA zoom like the Tokina 11-16 or Sigma 10-20.

Covering the longer focal lengths on APS-C is almost always done by FF lenses, including the ones mentioned above.

For APS-C shooters, the f/2.8 APS-C standard zoom and possibly an UWA zoom are all that's needed. The 50-135 f/2.8 type zooms (70-200 f/2.8 equivalent) did not catch on so vendors other than Pentax pretty much stopped making them. The longer focal lengths are almost always FF lenses except in rare cases.
You get better corner performance, build quality, and are set if you decide to upgrade to FF. Obviously with the 1.5x / 1.6x crop factor, it's the wides where dedicated APS-C lenses are needed but crop factor because a bonus at longer focal lengths.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Richard Murdey
By Richard Murdey (7 months ago)

@Richard Butler

If all your lenses are DX, there is no upgrade path for FF. It's a buy-over.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (7 months ago)

@Richard Murdey - indeed.

And if you're using FF lenses on your APS-C DSLR, then how many of them are actually well-suited to your camera? Has the idea od an 'upgrade path' been artificially reinforced by the effective neglect APS-C as a format?

Does that mean it's the clear upgrade path that marike6 points out, or have you been mis-sold your current lenses, as an APS-C user?

@PerL - I acknowledged tele-zooms, such as the 70-200mms, precisely because it's a lens that makes sense and serves similar purposes (to different degrees) on both formats.

5 upvotes
bcalkins
By bcalkins (7 months ago)

I have to agree with R Butler - precisely what attracts me to MFT is that from the smallest bodies to the high end ones they all take the same lenses with the same FOV and use.

Not to mention that to get 'small' in dSLRs you typically need to give up features or controls relatively to a similar sized body like the EM-1.

Comment edited 57 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
McFern
By McFern (7 months ago)

All formats up to FF are strictly amateur formats just as it was in film and is why aps-c and FF formats are still stuck with the idiotic 3/2 format. Medium format is a bridge to the true professional large format...film or digital. The point is, there is no reason to hurry on the way to full frame unless there is a desire for Popeye arms from toting around a huge heavy camera (which weighs twice as much as its film counter part). I for one chose 4/3 for the sensible format, weight, and just plain beautiful photos from those super sharp lenses. No hurry here for FF.

0 upvotes
Robert Morris
By Robert Morris (7 months ago)

I have 11 lense for my D90 and only 2 are DX only. The 18-105mm kit and my Sigma 10-20mm wide everything else is FX. Just waiting on Nikon to bring out the right FX that suits my needs better than the DX's do. It's been a long wait. And with the new Sigma 1.8 zoom I might give up on the FX all together and get the D400.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

though I think APS-C SLRs should die before m4/3" does, I'm still using them and I'll get new ones like 70D or 7D2.

'upgrade path' can be viewed from another angle that when someone builds a system, he should build it around Canikon 35mm format cameras and lenses. APS-C SLRs could complement it for better sensor resolution (especially for Canon who don't have D800) and faster frame rate (especially for Canon who don't have D700).

same for m4/3" that nobody should build a system around m4/3" mount for either quality or cost-performance reasons. 35mm format SLRs are far better. the difference with APS-C SLRs is that there is no 'upgrade path' for m4/3".

for those who don't have full-frame camera at the moment, they should build their system around an imaginary one. it may be called 'upgrade' but I'd rather say "build the system from day one with a full-frame camera as a later piece."

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Thorgrem
By Thorgrem (7 months ago)

yabokkie, you forget that by far most dSLR users have no interest in FF. For me there is a clear upgrade path and within that path i still can use my body and lenses. It's all compatible. And I don't want FF.

My upgrade path till now was from E-PL1 to E-P3 and from kit zooms to premium primes. Next step (if I am willing, but I don't see the need now for my use) will be the E-M5 or something like that and the Pro line of lenses. At each step I take, I can still use my old stuff. R Butler sees it right.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
PerL
By PerL (7 months ago)

Thorgrem, regarding FF there is a diffrence between lacking interest vs cant afford. As prices of FF gets down to traditional prosumer levels (like Nikon D200/D300, Canon 40D-7D) you may see a surge. Especially if the bodies gets more compact, which seems to be the trend.

0 upvotes
leeharrisx
By leeharrisx (7 months ago)

TRUE OVF? Errr the point is that OVFs are a shadow of what they used to be in the old manual film cameras (the old Om1n was a joy to use). your modern DSLRs have dingy ones in comparison, the EM5 view finder is great to use (and can be enhanced for low light) apparently this new one is even better, Face facts, OVFs are on the way out, heavy, expensive and usually requiring a complicated mechanical element. And anyway with these MILC cameras you still have an OVF, it's called your eye.

2 upvotes
PerL
By PerL (7 months ago)

leeharrisx,
The EM5 you mention does not have a larger viewfinder than what you find on prosumer APS-C DSLRs like Nikon D7100, Pentax K5, Canon 7D etc. There are serious drawbacks for EVFs for high speed action shooting. If OVFs are expensive it does not reflect itself in the prices. For instance a Pentax K5 II with a great OVF and superb build quality is 30 percent cheaper than the new Oly.
But I agree that OVFs was better in the old days, and that the entry level DSLRs often has painfully small viewfinders.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
McFern
By McFern (7 months ago)

Thorgrem gets my point. Not everyone wants to upgrage to FF. The 4/3 format is a great format on its own and there is no need to enlarge the camera, the lenses, the kit bag, etc. As I write this, I'm looking at a wall of photos made with 6X6, 645, 35, and modern digital. I can visably see a difference between the medium formats and the 35 and digital BUT, I can not see a difference between the 35 and digital (other than the differences between Velvia and digital tones). But I do remember the the BIG difference of not carrying the medium stuff around all day because its heavy. Heavy=leave it behind. leave it behind=no photo. This system is beautiful for its compactness.

1 upvote
MrTritium
By MrTritium (7 months ago)

My god, this is so THICK and HEAVY when compared with the Nex6/7 !!!
http://camerasize.com/compare/#33,482

4 upvotes
dgreene196
By dgreene196 (7 months ago)

And yet, when you add a good wide-angle/normal prime, the E-M1 can be a lighter set-up.
http://camerasize.com/compact/#33.85,482.30,ha,t

7 upvotes
STNY
By STNY (7 months ago)

This is a much fairer comparison:

Nex6 with Sony 20mm vs OM-D E-M1 with Panny 20mm

http://camerasize.com/compact/#33.369,482.30,ha,t

3 upvotes
Richard Murdey
By Richard Murdey (7 months ago)

It is, yes, but for many its the NEX which is too small.

4 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (7 months ago)

I find the NEX ideal in size, forall but makro, for that I need heavy stuff, I can't keep a light camera still for makro shots. With the big dslr, i make 2 seconds handheld without blur, with the NEX 1/2 maximum.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HelloToe
By HelloToe (7 months ago)

My god, this is so THIN when compared with the Sony A3000!!!

http://camerasize.com/compare/#479,482

Comment edited 24 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Artpt
By Artpt (7 months ago)

First and foremost....thank you DPReview for the first look with sample and photo comparision...

To resolve the chatter of image quality and sensor size, could an image survey be posted that had your comparison tool photo but blank with camera information..

Only ISO categories are labeled. Then a handful of cameras available to vote on to guess which camera produced which image....the results would be a percentage of who guessed what right...or wrong....

It would be fun and I am sure it would convince some viewers that at our current level of technology, image quality may not be so easy to relate to the camera.....

Just a thought....

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Felix11
By Felix11 (7 months ago)

I think this tool is fantastic.

But I am concerned that the the difference between all the cameras eg. E-M1 and 5D Mark 3 is so minimal.

Is that an accurate reflection of reality or is the leading us astray?

Also:
1. I am not certain the green fuzzy stuff is much use - certainly having so much of it!
2. If the writing on the three cards was different on each card you wouldn't learn it of by heart in a single comparison session :-)
3. My favourite spot on the old test scene was inside the box looking at the cotton reels. There doesn't seem to be a similar low light area here.
4. Who is the man in the old fashioned print?

3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

> Only ISO categories are labeled.

it requires good equipment and careful tuning,
very costly that DPReview chose not do it.
the camera advertised ISOs cannot be trusted at all.
the survey will also receive high level of noise from fanboys.

btw,
DPReview's tool is not designed to compare image quality.

Comment edited 5 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (7 months ago)

Close to the same size and weight as the GH3 (and the D5200, surprisingly). Not a problem for me, but many think DSLR sized bodies run counter to the m43 philosophy.

This camera also doesn't have the good looks of the EM-5, IMHO, but then neither does the GH3.

I think it's the way the grip looks tacked on that detracts for the design. The three knurled knobs also look a bit odd. The two command dials should probably have been embedded in the grip and thumb rest rather than placed on top.

And since most Olympus lenses are silver, it's odd that the E-M1 is only offered in Black.

3 upvotes
Beat Traveller
By Beat Traveller (7 months ago)

Many also think that the tradeoff to having tiny bodies is that you can't fit as many physical controls on them. Besides, even if the body is comparable to a DSLR, the lenses are slightly smaller.

1 upvote
kreislauf
By kreislauf (7 months ago)

+1 for this. while lenses are considerably lighter, big FF lenses have it's own right to exist.

fast lenses like the panasonic 25/1.4: 200 g
nikon 24/1.4 G: 620 g
canon 24/1.4 USMII: 650 g

well, just plain numbers. don't even know what that means...

0 upvotes
sarkozy
By sarkozy (7 months ago)

I find 4/3 wonderful -
I think 16 MP is awesome -
and I stick to my OM-D E-M5 -
the E-M1 I do not want

1 upvote
Anders Ostmoe
By Anders Ostmoe (7 months ago)

Is this a precise observation: "Focus is usually acceptably fast, though anyone coming from an E-3 or E-5 is likely to find themselves disappointed, in comparison"?

Now I have read some other quick reviews and they were far from disappointed. In fact, two of them claimed that focusing was faster with some FT lenses than on the E-5. Maybe they were high on the new camera, but it certainly does sound like the camera focuses as fast as one could expect and hope....

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

it may be a lens issue. 12-60/2.8-4.0 focuses quite fast.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (7 months ago)

The 12-60mm, F2.8-4.0 is one of the lenses we tested.

We've tried four Four Thirds lenses and the AF performance is certainly usable, but I find it hard to believe anyone would describe it as faster than the E-5. I've got the battery for an E-5 charging and I hope to prepare some side-by-side demonstrations.

12 upvotes
GBC
By GBC (7 months ago)

That would be great. From what I've read the 12-60 is limited by the speed of the lens changing focus.

Some of the other previews are saying that the EM1 is better at AF than the E5, which is great, but still substandard relative to Nikon I would guess.

0 upvotes
emircruz
By emircruz (7 months ago)

@rbutler, did you get to test the 50/2 macro on this badboy? It hunts like crazy on the PENs.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

also we cannot test the same SLR 4/3" lenses on m4/3" bodies. we can only compare different lenses designed for each mount.

Comment edited 38 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Hubertus Bigend
By Hubertus Bigend (7 months ago)

@R Butler: One similarly critical note about the E-M1's PDAF has been posted as part of a quite thorough report in the German "Systemkamera-Forum", and the author noted that PDAF speed was rather good in bright light, whereas much behind the E-5 in dim light (and who used them knows that the E-3/30/5 cameras didn't focus well in dim light to begin with). Perhaps that would be something to consider for further investigations?

1 upvote
Tim the Grey
By Tim the Grey (7 months ago)

Ah nuts. Just as I'd started to mentally, and emotionally, switch from 4/3 Olympus, to Nikon, they do this...

Damn you, Olympus! Darn you all to Heck!!!

I WANT one.

Anybody want a nice, clean, D700?

3 upvotes
retro76
By retro76 (7 months ago)

Yes, are you kidding I would take a D7100 over this camera any day of the week, hech I would take a older SLR over this body. I still think the IQ of these m43 sensors is highly overrated. I used the OMD for six months are could never get the tonality, color, and DOF as what I get from APC sensors. Not sure what it is, but these cameras produce a very high end P&S look.

3 upvotes
McFern
By McFern (7 months ago)

The reason the IQ tests are done in crops is because the differences in the photos are too small to readily see unless the enlargement is very large. Aps-c diagonal for an 8x10 crop is a little less than 4mm...not large enough a difference to visibly effect depth of field. tonality and color are completely subjective and I personally love the look of Oly's JPEGs...and so do my brides and their mamas. Just saying.

1 upvote
brendon1000
By brendon1000 (7 months ago)

Have to agree with you. After sorting through hundreds of OMD photos on the internet I somehow never seem to find any of them really stellar. They are sharp but something seems to be lacking.

1 upvote
leeharrisx
By leeharrisx (7 months ago)

I disagree, I consider my photos to have a very natural look when I choose to lay off too much PP. As to DOF that argument is tosh! I shoot portraits with the 45 and 75 mm and the DOF is perfect for such commercial portraits PLUS what a lot of people don't realise is that most fool frame shooters need to use maybe f2.8/4 to have a similar usable image and the flash output is then 2-4x more than what I need shooting at f1.8, often the difference between getting away with a strobe and having to use at least mono bloc which costs a damn sight more money.

2 upvotes
eddie_cam
By eddie_cam (7 months ago)

Focus peaking doesn't work using manual lenses on the E-M1.

0 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (7 months ago)

"If you're using a non-native lens, via an adapter, you'll have to assign Peaking or Magnify to one of the main six customizable buttons on the camera."

9 upvotes
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (7 months ago)

Let me sum up what every poster wants to say.

1. A full frame sensor is bigger than an m4/3s sensor and offers shallower depth of field.

2. F2.8 is F2.8 on any system. All cameras will yield the same shutter speed for a given ISO and focal ratio.

3. 4/3s and especially m4/3s lenses are smaller and lighter than APS-C and Full Frame lenses.

4. The EM-1 focuses very fast and accurately with m4/3s lenses. Not so much with 4/3s lenses.

5. EM-1 video is a disappointing 1080p @ 30 FPS at 24Mbps. No true 60p recording. Not even in 720p.

6. The E-M1 has live view Bulb time with refresh rates of several minutes or more.

7. The Flash synch speed is an excellent 1/320 of a second which could mean that rolling shutter is reduced.

8. The class leading Olympus 5 axis IS works in stills and movie mode.

10. There is no built-in flash on the EM-1 because they believe everyone who buys it will just use an external flash.

11. They will never make another true 4/3s camera or 4/3s lens again.

42 upvotes
Erik Magnuson
By Erik Magnuson (7 months ago)

Flash sync speed (mechanical shutter timing) has nothing to do with rolling shutter (sensor shutter timing.)

8 upvotes
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (7 months ago)

It really depends on how they accomplished that synch speed. Nikon uses an electronic shutter to achieve their 1/500 of a second shutter speeds in their higher end models.

If Olympus did the same then it is also likely that their electronic shutter is operating at a faster read out rate. The read out rate does indeed affect rolling shutter.

Only time will tell what they did to achieve this.

2 upvotes
Englishman in France
By Englishman in France (7 months ago)

I think George Lucas has been teaching Olympus how to count. What are Olympus going to call their 5th model in the series ?

3 upvotes
g7star
By g7star (7 months ago)

E-M1 Mark V

1 upvote
FocusBogus
By FocusBogus (7 months ago)

OM-D E-M1 sounds messy. Why not simply OM-D2? And then cheaper models OM-D20, OM-D200...

PEN is a weird choice for a camera name... it sounds like what I have in my pants.

4 upvotes
Haider
By Haider (7 months ago)

It's history OM-1 was originally called M-1. Leica objected and Oly changed the OM-1. If you have the one with M-1 it's a collectors item now. OM-D E-M1 just right.

0 upvotes
Jorginho
By Jorginho (7 months ago)

YEah..my reason not to buy one. This is just stupid. I wanted an EM6, but Oly decided to give us the EM1. Epic fail.

3 upvotes
alfredo_tomato
By alfredo_tomato (7 months ago)

Did Olympus say they aren't upgrading the EM5?

0 upvotes
pdelux
By pdelux (7 months ago)

What a bout a Canon Rebel Kiss.

0 upvotes
acidic
By acidic (7 months ago)

I like the PEN name. I often thought they should emphasize the in-body image stabilization, and call it the PEN-IS. Then lazy forum posters can eliminate the hyphen like they do with the OM-D.

4 upvotes
Bruce Crossan
By Bruce Crossan (7 months ago)

Would love to see Fuji do something like this

2 upvotes
Henry Falkner
By Henry Falkner (7 months ago)

Should do away with the bickering about 4/3 versus micro 4/3, since it allows to use lenses from both ranges. Weather resistance is a good thing, you can take this camera out of the studio. At this price point you do want to be able to use an external microphone for video. And it does have knobs for everything.

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (7 months ago)

You've been able to use 4/3 lenses on all micro 4/3 bodies since the beginning. The question still remains about comparable AF speed, lag and VF performance, which was always the complaint from day 1.

4 upvotes
PenGun
By PenGun (7 months ago)

Makes no sense to me. The Fuji X cameras will just murder it in almost every way and cost less.

7 upvotes
InTheMist
By InTheMist (7 months ago)

Except focusing.

(from a proud Fuji X100s owner)

19 upvotes
Thorgrem
By Thorgrem (7 months ago)

This E-M1 is part of a system. The Fuji X is a nice system, but can't compete to m4/3. And this E-M1 body isn't murdered not even matched by any of the Fuji X offerings. S-AF, C-AF, weather sealing, fast zooms, tele zooms, tele prime, flash system and so on are all better in the m4/3 system. Fuji has a really long way to go, hope they will make it some day.

Comment edited 32 seconds after posting
20 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (7 months ago)

and response when taking a photo. Add that to poor AF and Raw files that are difficult to process. Hence why quite a few pros have sold them quickly or taken them back for a refund. Also the Fuji body is a thin metal.

2 upvotes
PenGun
By PenGun (7 months ago)

Yeah. I use cameras to take pictures, then I print em'. I've been doing this for nearly 40 years.

Quality is what I need.

I don't need auto focus at all really. I do use it as the Fuji X is very accurate.

I don't use zooms unless I have no choice and I can set up all manner of lighting fired by the X-E1 flash.

Quality is what matters. I know all of photography has become a fashion statement and how the camera looks is all important. As well the camera has to take the pictures 'cause almost noone knows how.

I don't have any of those problems so this little toy is in no way attractive.

2 upvotes
PenGun
By PenGun (7 months ago)

RAW, go have a look at my site. It is just fine.

Thin metal ... ROTFLMFAO

1 upvote
PlainOrFancy
By PlainOrFancy (7 months ago)

Murder is a very strong word. Let's just say this piece of equipment is not for you and move on.

2 upvotes
flipmac
By flipmac (7 months ago)

"Except focusing."

And stabilization, weather sealing, burst rate, lens selection, wifi, etc.

"Quality is what I need.."

Then why you shooting with an APS-C cam? Go FF or MF.

"Makes no sense to me"

You make no sense.

7 upvotes
Haider
By Haider (7 months ago)

If you want quality large format (50x60cm film) only way to go. Lens quality to boot. Forget the rest be the best. Trust one see one of those prints you know what quality is...

2 upvotes
Beat Traveller
By Beat Traveller (7 months ago)

Ah yes, another 'I personally have no use for this camera, so clearly no one will buy it' post.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
Richard Murdey
By Richard Murdey (7 months ago)

Seems to me that the XE-1 is broadly comparable to the E-M1. Price at launch was similar.

The Olympus is a more SLR-like, the Fuji is more rangefinder-like. Moe than specs., they are completely opposite in outlook and its that which should be the deciding factor when it comes to making a purchase.

0 upvotes
photobeans
By photobeans (7 months ago)

Except in real world usage. Missed focus, slow focus, slow shooting. The OM-D is like a sports car. Quick as hell.

0 upvotes
CortoPA
By CortoPA (7 months ago)

It's like a Pentax K-5 IIs, But with No Flash, OVF and a smaller sensor.

Costs a bit more to.

And I guess its a tiny bit smaller.

I guess if you are heavily invested in the FourThirds stuff this is a must have.

11 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (7 months ago)

Costs more only in the sense of 'has exactly the same price at launch.'

18 upvotes
CortoPA
By CortoPA (7 months ago)

I guess I was thinking of what one can spend atm.

You know, Right now.

1 upvote
offertonhatter
By offertonhatter (7 months ago)

I was thinking the same thing. But Richard does have a point. But at the end of the Day it comes down to preferring PDAF and APS-C of the K-5IIs vs the CDAF and M43 of the Olympus. Dimension wise the bodies are quite close, although the DA*16-50 is a bit bigger than the 12-40 Olympus. Still if the street price of the E-M1 and 12-40 is anything to go by, it will be £400-£500 more than the Pentax combo. Horses for courses really.
My personal preference is the Pentax, purely as I have invested a great deal in the system, and it is still a cracking camera. Just wish it had the flash sync speed of the Olympus.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (7 months ago)

I guess if you are heavily invested in ANYTHING this may not be for you.

4 upvotes
KariIceland
By KariIceland (7 months ago)

I love everything about this camera except the price point of course but would I buy one? If I did not own the E-M5 already I would.
But I will be waiting for the next model (E-M2 ???)
In hopes of it having a far more improved low light capabilities. That is the only reason I will hold back for now.

6 upvotes
Richard Murdey
By Richard Murdey (7 months ago)

News flash: every new camera is released at a price higher than most people want to pay for it, and higher than the camera companies plan to sell it for. Then, after 3 months when the price drops 30% everyone is so grateful to hand over their money and Olympus, Nikon and the rest laugh all the way to the bank.

3 upvotes
HelloToe
By HelloToe (7 months ago)

The marketing term for it is 'price skimming'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_skimming

0 upvotes
Absolutic
By Absolutic (7 months ago)

I have a question. Ming Thein in his review indicates that EM1 has 14bit Raws http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3830/9666604337_1683037770_o.jpg but Olympus own specs page talks about 12bit. Dpreview team here does not address the bits in its preview. Which is it, does EM1 finally has 14bit capability?

0 upvotes
TransientEye
By TransientEye (7 months ago)

Unfortunately, I think it is currently outputting 12 bit files.

If you use the dpreview image comparison tool and set the display to ISO 25600 and RAW, you will see that the E-M5 and E-M1 (?) files are almost exactly the same size. If the EM1 used 14 bits, the raw should be significantly larger.

This is a shame, because the sensor does look as if it can generate more information. There again, consider Canon, who have 14 bit files but where the least significant 3 bits are mostly noise - you end up with a large file but no real value gained from those bits.

Overall, the EM1 file sizes seem to suggest that the EM1 is generating slightly more data than the EM5 - probably thanks to the omission of the anti-aliasing filter. However, it will need a proper review of the RAW file quality to see just how much better...

Comment edited 55 seconds after posting
1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (7 months ago)

> There again, consider Canon, who have 14 bit files

Or consider Nikon who have 14-bit NEF files with class leading DR, high ISO, and color depth.

14-bit RAWs are a huge omission at this price point.

6 upvotes
Absolutic
By Absolutic (7 months ago)

I agree. However, I pre-odered EM1 anyway, I think it will be an awesome camera

1 upvote
Jim Evidon
By Jim Evidon (7 months ago)

I like that it is a little larger and has a built in grip. The need to remove the grip on my E-M5 to change batteries is a real pain in the derriere. The fact that it has no anti-aliasing filter is also a big plus since there are now enough excellent programs to eliminate moire so that the filter is no longer necessary to those who do their own post processing. The ability to correct for different lenses is also a great feature that I find very useful on my Fuji XPro-1 when using M mounted lenses. That Olympus adds this feature for 4/3 and MFT lens mounts is laudable. Moving the on-off switch eliminates the annoying placement of the switch on the EM-5. They seem to have addressed most of the issues and have added enough custom buttons to avoid most menu surfing. Three cheers for Olympus and I hope that their present financial difficulties brought on, not by product deficiencies but rather the former crooked management does not impair their survival. They make a great product.

5 upvotes
Marathonianbull
By Marathonianbull (7 months ago)

People,

Careful if you compare images from the three Olympus: DPReview opted to use the mZuiko 45mm on the E-M1 & E-P5, but the (better) Zuiko 50mm f/2 on the E-M5... As a result, I deem that this test - for my own purpose of deciphering any sort of IQ difference btw the three said models - isn't as reliable as I had hoped! Just be careful not to come to believe that the E-M5 is significantly better than the new E-M1; just arm the E-M1 with the 50mm or the 12-60mm, and let the real show begin...

Sincerely,

Marathonianbull

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
ljmac
By ljmac (7 months ago)

Thanks for pointing that out - I was wondering why the E-M5 sample images looked so much sharper than the E-M1's. DPR, please correct this - stick with the 50mm so we can do accurate comparisons with other 4/3rds models (and there will likely never be a sharper lens anyway).

1 upvote
Robert Morris
By Robert Morris (7 months ago)

Where are the user configurable setting on the mode dial or does this camera use setting banks like other "Pro" cameras.

0 upvotes
Macx
By Macx (7 months ago)

"Any of the positions on the mode dial can be over-written with a user-defined 'Myset' preset, if you would like quick access to your preferred settings." Page 4.

2 upvotes
edm78
By edm78 (7 months ago)

LET THE TOXIC, SNOBS, BIASED, AND SO-CALLED EXPERT CRITICS BEGIN THEIR ASSAULT!!!! LOL

6 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (7 months ago)

you caps lock is stuck kid....

22 upvotes
Valiant Thor
By Valiant Thor (7 months ago)

You caps lock is un-stuck kid....

2 upvotes
rallyfan
By rallyfan (7 months ago)

I want to like this thing.

Didn't read the ad; anybody got any decent motorsport shots with this? It's all about AF tracking.

Thanks!

1 upvote
KariIceland
By KariIceland (7 months ago)

You do not need to use AF tracking for motor sports, pre focus on a spot and be ready to click the shutter button as soon as a vehicle enters it.

0 upvotes
JDThomas
By JDThomas (7 months ago)

You don't need focus tracking nor do you pre-focus and press the shutter-release when the vehicles enters the frame.

You use single point and track the vehicle manually by panning.

2 upvotes
rallyfan
By rallyfan (7 months ago)

Anybody?

1 upvote
Tim the Grey
By Tim the Grey (7 months ago)

I doubt anyone's tried it yet. But I would like to! My E-1 can still keep up with an F1 or LMP1 car, but my D700 just does it better. Fewer Loss of Focus moments, etc. So I expect WAY better from this thing.

0 upvotes
rallyfan
By rallyfan (7 months ago)

I too would love to try it! Small is attractive in more than one way; it's not just out catching action shots, it's also candids at the paddock etc.

So you've had good experiences with the E-1? Everyone I've discussed it with loved that camera.

0 upvotes
Tim the Grey
By Tim the Grey (7 months ago)

I had 2, and the one I still have is now 10 years old. I will not part with it. Though I now need a few repairs, I managed to crack the rear screen last month *SOB*.
But the 11-22 and 50-200 are just brilliant, and it's STILL the most ergonomic thing I ever held.

0 upvotes
Jim in Hudson
By Jim in Hudson (7 months ago)

JDThomas, you can't pan a car coming at you.

0 upvotes
rallyfan
By rallyfan (7 months ago)

I read about a mobile phone app that allows mirroring the display from Olympus and controlling the shutter. That would be neat; set up a body right next to the tarmac on a special stage and snap away remotely (I've probably dodged as many marshals on stages as I've had photographers dodge me when I've marshalled stages... Heh, the cycle of sports pics life...).

0 upvotes
Tape5
By Tape5 (7 months ago)

The mighty Sony RX100 II, with all its limitations ( or strengths ) shows a better resolution at ISO 400 through a fixed lens, than this camera. This is a joke by itself.

And the thing suffers from personality disorder. Here is the DSM V definition:

a personality disorder reflects "adaptive failure" involving: "Impaired sense of self-identity" or "Failure to develop effective interpersonal functioning."

9 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (7 months ago)

lol

no.

RAW or JPEG. At any ISO setting.

Not that RX100 is a slouch. And both share Sony sensors, but the edge still goes to the E-M1.

Nice try though.

11 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (7 months ago)

well the sony RX100 II is pretty good compared to this.

2 upvotes
calking
By calking (7 months ago)

The RX100 / 100II are zoom lenses, not fixed.

1 upvote
tkbslc
By tkbslc (7 months ago)

"Fixed lens" normally denotes lenses that cannot be removed from the camera.

3 upvotes
tjbates
By tjbates (7 months ago)

I really like the EM-5 look - but unfortunately going larger like the GH3 did after the GH2 doesn't work for me aesthetically.
I also think going even bigger betrays the m4/3 system (keep it small and light) philosophy. That's why the mini (car) isn't a mini anymore - just a puffed up version of what it was originally intended to be. Marketing folks - God bless them.

I studied the high ISO samples and can't pick any difference between most of the recent offerings printed on 8x10 paper.
I'm staying with what Iv'e got until I see how nice in the hand the Panasonic GX7 really is.

2 upvotes
Lucas_
By Lucas_ (7 months ago)

I find this retro look very ugly ( same as EM-5's ) though I know a lot of people love it. Anyway, I'm really well impressed with this camera, for photography it looks to me above the Panny GH3. I wonder if, like the EM-5, this EM-1 also uses a Sony made sensor.
Great job, Oly!

5 upvotes
KariIceland
By KariIceland (7 months ago)

The retro look is quite beneficial for street ironically, Most people think I am carrying a film camera so they don't bother asking me to "remove the film" after taking a photo of them.

1 upvote
Lab D
By Lab D (7 months ago)

Nice camera. I want to see how well it works with 4/3 lenses. there are some very good ones.

3 upvotes
Toomuchroom
By Toomuchroom (7 months ago)

So disappointed that we're still stuck with NTSC frame rates, no 25/50fps option. How difficult could it be to implement it?

I loved the EM-5, but returned it after two weeks because of this. Beautiful stills camera, amazing 5-axis stabilisation but unusable frame rates for PAL regions.

Was hoping the shiny new OM-D would address this. Oh well.

3 upvotes
dombi
By dombi (7 months ago)

Not to mention that in Europe, where people DON'T USE the NTSC format, have to pay way more for this camera than elsewhere.

Seriously, how hard could it be for Olympus to make PAL format for their cameras. It was missing in the E-M5, and now it is missing in the E-M1.

I guess they don't care much for the EU market.

3 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (7 months ago)

PAL/NTSC is for analog TVs.

That era is over.

8 upvotes
KariIceland
By KariIceland (7 months ago)

Bluevellet tell that to Iceland & several other nations where it is very much alive.

2 upvotes
dombi
By dombi (7 months ago)

bluevellet: we are really talking about the 24/25p frame rate that is NOT included in this camera.

24/25p is the frame rate used in Europe. And it is included in pretty much all the other cameras, except the m4/3 cameras made by Olympus.

0 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (7 months ago)

I live in Europe and I have no problem running a NTSC/30fps signal into a computer monitor or a HDTV. They adapt. This ain't 1995 anymore.

True, developed countries could run into problems with this spec limitation, but would they really consider this camera?

But frame rate control is more of a videographer and film maker issue. Olympus chose not to go toe-to-toe with GH3. Why? I don't know.

5 upvotes
Toomuchroom
By Toomuchroom (7 months ago)

Electricity supply in PAL regions runs at 50hz. If you film at 30/60fps in artificial light the shutter goes out of phase and produces a very noticeable flicker.

Shooting at 30/60fps as opposed to 25/50fps also presents other problems, ones I am not able to accept. The EM-5 does so many other things so incredibly well, how difficult could it be to offer a choice?

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
rfsIII
By rfsIII (7 months ago)

....

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Biowizard
By Biowizard (7 months ago)

I agree. 4/3 has (er, had?) lenses which were proud successors to the OM-mound Zuikos. Utterly gorgeous glass in search of the perfect body. Sadly m4/3 was built as a CSC system, with toy-sized bodies and delicate little attachments. There are no m4/3 lenses to compare with the best Pro-spec (full)4/3 ones. And this latest Olympus will fall because of that.

Actually, even though I am devoted to real optical viewfinders, I would ALMOST be tempted by a second version of the new Oly, with a slightly bigger body (and perhaps an info LCD on the top plate) - with a (full)4/3 mount.

2 upvotes
kreislauf
By kreislauf (7 months ago)

why choose full 4/3 lenses? they are not much smaller than lenses for APS or FF systems.
m4/3 is, in my opinion, much lighter and THIS is what i see in m4/3, a system with good (not utterly gorgeous) but light glass.

i found 4/3 DSLRs more funny than anything. bulky and not light, so the smaller senser would not make much sense to me...

0 upvotes
NikonScavenger
By NikonScavenger (7 months ago)

I have a problem paying that kind of change for what is still an m4/3 sensor.

Will we eventually see m4/3 gear approaching that of an FF camera like the D600 or 6D, because we're very close... and it's not even fair to compare the two.

12 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (7 months ago)

Then it wouldn't be m43 anymore. A completely new system.

And it's fair to compare FF and M43 because both come their pros and cons.

2 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (7 months ago)

Yes it makes sense to compare...
FF = Faster focus, better dynamic range, Higher ISO, better depth of field control and subject isolation
M43= Smaller

2 upvotes
dombi
By dombi (7 months ago)

m4/3 has its advantages. Yes, image quality will be better on a FF, but you can always ask the question if you really need it?

Or maybe you can sacrifice some of that quality for a smaller overall system.

Take a look a m4/3 camera with a 20mm lens (40 mm FF equivalent). Or with a 150 mm zoom lens (300 mm FF equiv.). You can't even compare the two in sizes.

The m4/3 system has a great potential, delivering good quality in a much smaller package.

You can use the two side by side. Take the m4/3s camera on a trip, and use the FF for work.

4 upvotes
white shadow
By white shadow (7 months ago)

@dombi

You are absolutely correct. Use the right tool for the right job.

2 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (7 months ago)

FF= Brick
M43=much smaller, cheaper admission price, superior liveview, can more easily shoot wide open, no dust problems (or oil problem in the case of Nikon), no back focus problems, IBIS (Sony's FF has it though), legacy lens support, in-body lens correction.

It's easy to tilt an argument your way when you ignore some details.

14 upvotes
KariIceland
By KariIceland (7 months ago)

"By Bamboojled (1 hour ago)

Yes it makes sense to compare...
FF = Faster focus, better dynamic range, Higher ISO, better depth of field control and subject isolation
M43= Smaller"

False in one thign, Faster Focus? not really, the Canon 6D has slower focusing than the E-M5 and so does the Nikon D600, why? canon and nikon went for cheap autofocus for affordable full frame, so you see not all full frames provide faster focusing speed.

2 upvotes
brycesteiner
By brycesteiner (7 months ago)

I would easily compare the two. Sensors have come so far in the last two years that no one can see the difference except the 4/3 has more in focus and less out of focus especially at really large apertures.
I shoot sports and now use the m4/3. Guess what? The person with the Nikon FF 3ds is asking me for shots to use because hers are not as good. I give them to her. People think it's off the Nikon, but it's really off the E-M5.
Is it gear or the final product that matters?

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
white shadow
By white shadow (7 months ago)

In most cases, its the person behind the camera that matters.

Probably, she is not a very good photographer to start with.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Andy16666
By Andy16666 (7 months ago)

So it's important to separate the myth from the fact. Full frame cameras perform better at higher ISOs because they have greater light gathering capabilities. But there are a number of myths floating around:
- Full frame cameras have better colors
FALSE, this is not an advantage of a large sensor.
- Full frame cameras have better dynamic range
FALSE, while the D800 is the leader in dynamic range, most full frame cameras on the market from Canon and Nikon have inferior dynamic range to the current crop of 4/3 sensors. And to crush the myth that large sensors have anything to do with dynamic range, the D800 also beats every medium format camera I've been able to find numbers on.
- Full frame focuses faster
FALSE, although the ones with phase detect do better motion tracking than the ones without, including the E-M5.

On the other hand, better control of depth of field is indeed an advantage of FF, assuming that less is better. However m4/3 IQ is best at larger apertures unlike FF.

3 upvotes
Tim the Grey
By Tim the Grey (7 months ago)

Can I chuck a curve ball in here? I have an Oly E-1, with a 50-200 2.8-3.5. It STILL shoots gorgeous jpegs. People LOVE the pictures.
I also have a Nikon D700, with an 80-200 AF-S 2.8 Nikkor on the front. I cannot get that same quality in the images.
Don't get me wrong, the D700 can run rings round the E-1 most days, but there's nowt wrong with 4/3 if you get it right.
Oh, yes, and the E-1 has NEVER given me a dusty shot. The D700 is teaching me to be careful, and clean things ALL the bloody time. Plus the E-1 with the big zoom is a LOT lighter than the Nikon...

2 upvotes
Haider
By Haider (7 months ago)

MF format sensors are x4 bigger than 35mm. 35mm is only x2 bigger than 4/3...

0 upvotes
pdelux
By pdelux (7 months ago)

Andy, get out of the comments section with your "FACTS"

No one uses FACTS in the comments section, it makes TOO MUCH SENSE and you will confuse all the M4/3 haters / FF superiority complex trolls.

1 upvote
sdribetahi
By sdribetahi (7 months ago)

Does just adding two wheels and customization buttons make a camera 'pro'? It still doesn't give you the option of shallow DOF, or AF of FAST moving objects. Anyone can add buttons to a p&s as well. Doesn't make it pro.

7 upvotes
String
By String (7 months ago)

Hmm, I dunno... maybe a full metal body, weather sealing, extended support, large viewfinder, built in grip, hi-speed flash sync., etc, etc. But then that's just me; of course if you judge "pro" by shallow DoF and don't think that m43 can do it then go play with your Canikon.

36 upvotes
LiquidSilver
By LiquidSilver (7 months ago)

I see most of "pro" using APS-C and f6-f7 eq lenses like the Canon F4 L, that, according dxomark, perform worse than the native lenses on m4/3, and have less DOF control.

Should I yell "Your are not a pro" when I see them? ^^''

8 upvotes
Oleg Vinokurov
By Oleg Vinokurov (7 months ago)

On sensor pd-af actually addresses the problem of focus on fast moving subjects. Razor thin dof is not exactly what makes camera pro, i would not call D600 or 6D pro grade cameras for example. And single focus is actually quite a bit better with contrast AF, than what you get with a dslr and pdaf.

5 upvotes
calking
By calking (7 months ago)

Real working pros know how to make gear work and don't obsess about every little fly crap thing like a Spec Head does.

7 upvotes
Vlad S
By Vlad S (7 months ago)

Even E-M5 AF does well with birds, planes, cars, speedboats, and running dogs. I expect E-M1 to be even better. People who say µ4/3 can't do even fast moving objects simply never had the gut to try it.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50076041

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
6 upvotes
white shadow
By white shadow (7 months ago)

@ calking

You are absolutely correct.

It is very strange that everybody seem to be so obsess with "shallow depth of field".

There is definitely more to a camera than this aspect. More important, it must suit your needs and feel good in your hands. I will definitely be trying it out on 21/9.

Meanwhile, go out and take some photos.

2 upvotes
Shengji
By Shengji (7 months ago)

To be fair, sdribetahi has a good point even if he has missed it himself - Is this camera designed for pro's to bring home the cheques or is the term pro being used here to market to the wannabe market.

Olympus have been building some exceptionally fine cameras recently, so I personally think this would make a fine addition to almost any pro's toolkit.

1 upvote
Oleg Vinokurov
By Oleg Vinokurov (7 months ago)

Well, sure it's marketing thing. I mean adding to any item label "PRO". Actual pros probably don't care about those labels at all, they will pick up tools that will do the job. E-M1 simply has features that might be necessary for some paid photographers, like robust and reliable body, well thought out external controls for fast access, good ergonomics, weather sealing.

0 upvotes
dombi
By dombi (7 months ago)

It's like saying anything other than a Ferrari, is not a car.

But even if you own a Ferrari, can you really push it to its limits? Do you push it to it limits at all times? How about gas milage, comfort, luggage space, etc.

It is the same with FF vs m4/3.

M4/3 has matured a lot in the past few years. There are quite a few really nice cameras out there: GX7, E-M5, E-M1, etc. Yes, the DOF is wider than on FF, but do you always need that? Really?

Image quality is really good with the new m4/3rds cameras. Check the samples at the end of this review.

And you can do a lot more with the wide range of lenses available on this platform.

3 upvotes
white shadow
By white shadow (7 months ago)

First of all, there are many types of Pro photographers. They are those who do studio photography, those who work as a photojournalist, those who shoot weddings and events, those who travel to the end of the earth to photograph nature and wildlife, those who do travel photography and those who do commercial (advertising) photography just to name a few.

A Pro photographer would normally have different cameras and lenses for different purpose. Price is normally not an issue if it fulfil his needs. Having said that, he may not chase after the latest camera.

Hobbyist, in fact, are more concern about the type of camera he is using. Having a "Pro" camera does not make a camera owner a Pro photographer. To achieve that he must learn all the essential techniques of photography which may take years.

So, it is best to buy what suit your needs and go out to take photos.

1 upvote
OM 6Ti Plus
By OM 6Ti Plus (7 months ago)

Post cancelled by me

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Ferling
By Ferling (7 months ago)

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away. There were pro cameras that had none of that. Then again, being regarded as a "pro" back then was a whole different meaning, as you really had to know what you were doing, flying in the dark without instruments.

Today, I'm very happy to have those buttons and dials on my camera's to make my job easier. Nothing wrong with "easier" even for the likes of me, correct?

Regarding shallow DOF, artistic fun, but for the most part, I need to incorporate the surroundings to fit the subject too! Then again, I like 2.8 not for DOF, but to have fast shutters speeds to stop motion without over doing the ISO in a dim lit place. Otherwise, I'm all over f5.6 and up, especially with two players and a ball, and it would be nice if all three were in sharp focus. Most of what I do still finds it's way onto a print, and too shallow of a DOF can be a ugly monster for that.

2 upvotes
Tim the Grey
By Tim the Grey (7 months ago)

I have 2 PRO bodies. A Nikon D700, with high ISO and full frame. Superb, and it's acquiring a better set of lenses as I afford them. And my 10 year old Oly E-1.
No, the Oly can't touch the /Nikon over 400 ASA. But then I don't expect it to. What it does is give me a bombproof camera, that has twice the reach (2x 'crop' factor) and used carefully will take every bit as good a picture. Go check my Flickr galleries, and play "Which camera took this..."

1 upvote
leeharrisx
By leeharrisx (7 months ago)

Oh for the love of god… DOF really? If that is your sole criteria of pro go buy a MF camera or better still a LF one! You will then be in DOF nirvana, it will of course be so blurry (apart from that dust mote on the tip of that eyelash) that should you ever print it at 2x 3 metres as you no doubt always do (because hell that is why you need and paid for all those pixels right?) you will then find yourself staring at something that will probably just be a muddy mess of tones and colours; something viewed at 100 pixels on your computer might look pleasingly soft, print it for real and large it will most likely look like crap.

Comment edited 15 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
whawha
By whawha (7 months ago)

Its a beautiful camera, but it competes in price with full frame SLRs and judging by the samples the high ISO quality is not even close.
Having said that, if high ISO are not your priority this could make a perfect travel camera - small, light and weatherproof.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
9 upvotes
Adrian Van
By Adrian Van (7 months ago)

The body price is $1399. US. How does that compete with a Nikon D600 or Canon 6D at $1899 for body in Canada here (maybe now less on sales in some areas). The Nikon D610 rumored to be out, will likely have $2000 for body. This camera competes with Nikon/Canon APSC bodies not full frame, such as D7100 body or 7D (prices at launch) perhaps or the Fuji XPro camera bodies or GH3. It has Smaller and lighter body that is weatherproof with great EVF should justify the price, as much as some might want it less expensive before buying. Olympus E5 was $1599 or was that $1699 at start price. Wait six months for some sales, or buy now. Price for what you get is in line, I think with the product for a high specified top of the line m43 from Olympus with newer dual contrast / phase detect on sensor which Nikon D7100 does not have in liveview. (Canon rumored 7D mark 2 may have dual sensor like 70D.)

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
whawha
By whawha (7 months ago)

Here in the UK the body price is given at £1299, whereas a 6D body can be found for less... Even assuming that it will drop a couple of hundred pounds after a while its still well in the same territory.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Adrian Van
By Adrian Van (7 months ago)

At the Olympus website, you can get a add on FL300R flash or MMF3 adaptor to full size 43 lens for FREE with camera purchase which they say is value of $179. May help some people decide to buy especially if they have 43 larger glass. With phase detect on sensor the larger 43 lenses should be much faster AF. We would all like to pay less, but let us be fair to Olympus, this is a well specified cameras with great features (which some of the value Canon/Nikon FF cameras are lacking with not identical features like dual sensor fast liveview, at least for this years models). For FF cameras at entry level, the sensor is their best selling feature, however their camera/lenses are still bigger. I say carry the camera that suits your taste.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Oleg Vinokurov
By Oleg Vinokurov (7 months ago)

There are many other things to a camera, than sensor size and high iso performance. Also comparing simple high iso shots side by side will be wrong in many cases. With FF quite often have to stop down the lens, where m43 still can shoot wide open or close down just a bit, which negates the difference quite a lot.

For this camera price feels adequate, quite surprising actually, since it comes from Olympus :) For example e-p5 in comparison feels quite overpriced.

6 upvotes
Andy16666
By Andy16666 (7 months ago)

"With FF quite often have to stop down the lens, where m43 still can shoot wide open or close down just a bit, which negates the difference quite a lot."

I'm finding exactly that. I get more than enough depth of field at F/1.4-3.5 on the E-M5 with the Panasonic Leica 25mm. And at 3200, pictures are more than usable. That lets me get shutter speeds up to 1/160th-1/250th under normal indoor lighting and I've been very happy with the results.

With full frame, I'd have to stop down a little to get enough depth of field.

2 upvotes
Owen
By Owen (7 months ago)

What FF camera can you get for $1399?

1 upvote
Haider
By Haider (7 months ago)

If you're into high iso then 35mm and low MP count is better. Horses for courses...All round system 4/3 is good. Good zooms, enough DOF control for subject isolation, in three zoom lens you can cover 14-400mm...

1 upvote
PhotoKhan
By PhotoKhan (7 months ago)

Tsk. tsk. tsk...
Again, that "Panasonic Colors" look...
Sad.

1 upvote
szlevi
By szlevi (7 months ago)

Huh?
It's a Sony sensor, just FYI.

5 upvotes
calking
By calking (7 months ago)

MONITOR CALIBRATION / !!!!!!!
Gosh darnit how many times do I have to tell you!!!!

9 upvotes
pdelux
By pdelux (7 months ago)

LOL, when trying to be insulting, it helps to get the facts right....

Come back and try again.. how about trying to point out the DOF is too wide.

2 upvotes
Haider
By Haider (7 months ago)

When is the E-620 successor coming out? Oly remember the E-620 body only is about £500...

0 upvotes
Simon Joinson
By Simon Joinson (7 months ago)

I'm going to guess we'll see porcine aviation before we see another 4/3 body...

11 upvotes
Haider
By Haider (7 months ago)

This is the E-5 successor and Terada said there would be a successor to the E-620...

1 upvote
bluevellet
By bluevellet (7 months ago)

If the phase detection sensor trickles down to the Pen line then you could have your E-620 successor in the form of an E-PM3 or E-PL7. EVF optional (3 to choose from).

1 upvote
Haider
By Haider (7 months ago)

I like the E-M1 grip. I'm more concerned about handling and ergonomics than a style statement. It's the right size and with lens and battery under 1kg - the right weight. IQ should be fine for 8x10 and A3...Time for the OM-D lite to make an appearance...

0 upvotes
ThePhilips
By ThePhilips (7 months ago)

If Oly keeps the tradition of E-system, then most of the tech inside the E-M1 will find its way into the cheaper PENs. E-PMx cam, armed with PDAF, would prompt even me to try it.

0 upvotes
Vladik
By Vladik (7 months ago)

Great looking cam, but I think I'd rather get 6D or D600 for pretty much that price.

20 upvotes
String
By String (7 months ago)

Then why don't you go buy one?

17 upvotes
calking
By calking (7 months ago)

No one will actually do that....but they think its impressive that they can compare prices between completely different things.

7 upvotes
StevenE
By StevenE (7 months ago)

It's micro 4/3, so you can forget about shallow DOF.
If that doesn't bother you, then this format could work.
Non starter for me, unless it can fit in my pocket.

3 upvotes
Thorgrem
By Thorgrem (7 months ago)

Go take a look at some m4/3 of 4/3 Flickr groups. Plenty of shallow DOF. Also shallow DOF is not the only aspect of photography.

26 upvotes
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (7 months ago)

Yeah, I keep forgetting about all those cameras that go in your pocket and have shallow DOF.

6 upvotes
sdribetahi
By sdribetahi (7 months ago)

No, shallow DOF is not the only aspect of photography, but for the price and something labelled 'pro', the camera should give you the option. Every camera can give you a huge DOF, including a p&s. Until the camera is good for ALL types of photography, it's not 'pro'.

1 upvote
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (7 months ago)

Everything is labeled "pro". It doesn't mean anything, except to the guy who bought it.

3 upvotes
Thorgrem
By Thorgrem (7 months ago)

So 'pro' camera's doesn't exist because, as we all know, every camera is a compromise. And yes, even a FF camera is a bunch of compromises.

5 upvotes
szlevi
By szlevi (7 months ago)

I must be dreaming then - my E-M5 gives me plenty of shallow DOF with my Oly 45/1.8 lens...

11 upvotes
moizes 2
By moizes 2 (7 months ago)

StevenE, try the Oly 75mm. It the best in world (today) glass,( in its class), of every respect, especially bokeh. Let as wait and see a real images, not a talkative demagogue from some ignorants here.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
davidrm
By davidrm (7 months ago)

So, according to sdribetahi a PhaseOne is not a pro camera.. since it is USELESS for video, for sports, for, well, endless things. So many camera users (owners, even). So few photographers.

4 upvotes
white shadow
By white shadow (7 months ago)

If shallow depth of field is the main criteria in photography, then everyone should be using medium or large format.

While shallow depth of field is useful for portraits and macro photography it is not required for landscape or product photography. If one really take photos professionally, he would have different cameras and lenses for different purpose.

This camera would be very useful for a travel photographer who need the rugged and higher specification in a small package.

If one knows how to use a micro 4/3 camera properly, he can get reasonable shallow depth of field. I have achieve very satisfactory results with the 45mm f/1.8 and the 75mm f/1.8. In fact, the result is much better or equal to any DSLR. Just try it for yourself.

Most important is to learn the technique.

6 upvotes
calking
By calking (7 months ago)

@ abrasive: BINGO
@ white shadow: BINGO 2

0 upvotes
spidermoon
By spidermoon (7 months ago)

If you want true DOF, go to Pentax 645D, it's surely the top PRO camera, it's big, have big lense, big sensor, big mirror and thin DOF. :)

0 upvotes
StevenE
By StevenE (7 months ago)

Of course you can get shallow dof, but you need wider apertures and you need to get much closer to the subject, which is not always possible.
BTW ... I don't expect as much from a camera that I can put in my pocket, but I can put my EOS-M with 22mm f/2 in my pocket, and get pretty shallow DOF.

These m4/3 cameras appeal to some people, fine. Not as a main camera for me. However I would consider one that could fit in my pocket, otherwise no thanks

0 upvotes
StevenE
By StevenE (7 months ago)

BTW "white shadow" shallow DOF is absolutely NOT something you look for in macro photography. Shallow DOF is a problem in macro, something photographers have to grapple with, even using focus stacking to increase the DOF.

Anyway, if you are happy with DOF capabilities of m4/3 then go for it. As my trumpet teacher used to say "The quickest way to be happier with your performance is to lower your standards."
His point applies here.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
leeharrisx
By leeharrisx (7 months ago)

Nonsense. plenty of shallow dof actually, oh what do I know? I just use them to shoot portraits for a living...

0 upvotes
kreislauf
By kreislauf (7 months ago)

*applaudes leeharrisx*

don't know if people, who despise everything except FullFrame here did ever shoot with. or whatever their reasons are.

i like the m4/3 system. back then i even had DOF shallow enough for me with my 18.5 /1.8 nikon 1. most of the time i even struggled with a too shallow DOF (and 18.5 /1.8 with a crop of 2.7x is nothing some people here want to touch ever!)
so it all comes down what you want.

shallow DOF and a creamy bokeh (these excact words!) is b̶̶e̶̶t̶̶t̶̶e̶̶r̶ more apparent with FF than m4/3. m4/3 can not reach that level, so i think, people who are biased will use that fact.
while others use size/portability.

after all this years of debate i am reading this argument-slapping more with a smile than emotions.

0 upvotes
BYRON MCD 77-81
By BYRON MCD 77-81 (7 months ago)

Stick on the Zuiko 50mm macro (good for portraits) and you've got all the shallow DOF you'll ever need.

0 upvotes
Bob Tullis
By Bob Tullis (7 months ago)

Blah, blah, blah. No one is asking about what's REALLY important - like how the eyecup is secured compared to the E-M5. Focus, people. ;)

4 upvotes
JEROME NOLAS
By JEROME NOLAS (7 months ago)

Damn eyecups, sticking out one inch out! For people with big noses? And why they have such weird shapes?

2 upvotes
calking
By calking (7 months ago)

Some noses are just that way...shaped weird.

6 upvotes
atamola
By atamola (7 months ago)

The fuzzy boundaries between mirrorless and SLR cameras are a good thing for all of us –irrespective of whether you are a professional or keen amateur.
Until recently, if you wanted D3X image quality you had to pay almost $6000. Today, you can have that for a fraction of the price and weight.
Until recently, the only one offering a relatively “compact” full frame camera was Leica and you had to pay around $7000 for it. Today you have the Sony-Zeiss combo in the RX1 for 40% of that price.
OMD, PEN, GX, X-… series did not exist.
Pick whatever suits you and carry on –let others pick whatever they want.

8 upvotes
calking
By calking (7 months ago)

I think the operative term you used that's the real issue for most of these forum heads is "pick what suits you...".

There can be no picking for most, because the perfect camera hasn't yet been invented. You know the one....tab-controlled flip sensor (APS-c and FF), mid-size body built like a tank but light and can be shrunk or expanded to taste, built-in lens adapter for any lens made post WWII, removable EVF with live satellite television broadcast of the users settings, quality craftsmanship on par with Rolls Royce for the cost of a Volkswagen Bus.....

4 upvotes
kreislauf
By kreislauf (7 months ago)

LOL

true. plus some forum heads are tolls who just get high on specs and "pro" stuff. you know, those people who would pay double for exclusive apple crap... (no offense)

0 upvotes
DanielFjall
By DanielFjall (7 months ago)

Jeez! It's all numbers and terms. Wait for the god dmn pictures, folks!

2 upvotes
DanielFjall
By DanielFjall (7 months ago)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mingthein/sets/72157635374194450/

0 upvotes
Juck
By Juck (7 months ago)

I thought the whole point of MILC systems was to reduce size? This behemoth is practically the same size as a Canon T5i,,, it's also double the price and has less resolution than the T5i. Heck,,, you could pick up a 70D for less than this thing.

Definitely one for the fanboys.

12 upvotes
RPJG
By RPJG (7 months ago)

Yes, because this is so much bigger than a 70D.

2 upvotes
Boissez
By Boissez (7 months ago)

It still is significantly smaller than the 70D,

http://camerasize.com/compact/#482.336,469.303,ha,t

Yet it offers more features at half the weight.

8 upvotes
bcalkins
By bcalkins (7 months ago)

You are missing the point! It is the size of the SYSTEM that attracts me to Olympus. Sure you can get a small body like the SL1 or T series, but none of those choices offer the sealing and durability, the large viewfinder, twin control dials and customization, etc. And most importantly, I can get small lenses and bodies to round out the system. With the Canon setup you end up going to full frame bodies and lenses. The smallest dSLRs are comparable to the largest MILC cameras. With Olympus (or Fuji and Samsung) it is all one system, from the smallest body to the largest, and the lenses are all compatible. Where is the Canon 24mm or 28mm equivalent prime lens for the T5i? The EM-1 with a pancake lens is still very small, compared to a similarly spec'd APS-C camera and shares lenses with the E-PM2 or GF series. Similarly, if you want fast primes you have to get full frame lenses for your APS-C body...

10 upvotes
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (7 months ago)

So the Canon T5i is you lust camera?
Also small does not have to mean pocketable.
Pockets are for phones.

1 upvote
pdelux
By pdelux (7 months ago)

Juck you are comparing the Largest M43 to the smallest DSLR?

Compare like for like and you will see the difference. Also include lenses as Most photographers use them....

1 upvote
Juck
By Juck (7 months ago)

Listen to you fanboys,,, you hold the metal body and weather sealing,, and especially the way it looks higher than it's capabilities as an actual camera.

I'm a photographer,, I care about the photographs.

This toy has no place as a street/art shooter due to the comical DOF.

As a wildlife shooter? ,,, ummm,, I don't think so.

On the sidelines of a football game? hell no,, ,,, so don't bore me with your blatherings about fps, IQ, and weather sealing. The guys on the sidelines use Nikon & Canon pro bodies (maybe 1 in 50 use Sony) for a reason,,, they have the best AI Tracking,, the best IQ,, the best DOF,, the best weather sealing and the best lenses. When I see one of these <laff> bodies on the sidelines at the next Buccs game,,,, we'll talk again.

You buy one of these,,, you bought a nice landscape/travel body,,, that's it,,, basically a 2013 equivalent of the Kodak Instamatic. Live with it.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
pdelux
By pdelux (7 months ago)

LOL^^ who sounds like a fanboy --- the best this the best that...

You may be right... FF DSLR has the BEST IQ the BEST DOF... ETC Most people who bought M43 already know this and they bought it anyway. Some people dont need the best if it means dragging around 5 Kg worth of gear. Some people (even pro's) are happy with second best and loads of other benefits.

I am not sure why you are so angry.

3 upvotes
Jonathan Parker Smith junior

I really want to see your photos Juck, they must be really something ;)

Comment edited 30 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Teru Kage
By Teru Kage (7 months ago)

E-M1, the successor of E-M5...sure there's nothing confusing about that. Nikon and Canon had a few models released before their number system started going backward; you'd think Olympus would have had the foresight to start with E-M1.

Anyways, based on my personal usage of M4/3, I don't feel the gains of the E-M1 justify the additional body bulk over the E-M5. To me, the appeal of M4/3 has always been good performance in a small package.

1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (7 months ago)

This isn't a successor to the E-M5, it's an additional model.

4 upvotes
G1Houston
By G1Houston (7 months ago)

Yeah, it is where you put the "-" that counts. :)

EM-1 vs E-M5. What do we do when we have EM-5?

1 upvote
Teru Kage
By Teru Kage (7 months ago)

It's the successor in that it inherits the mantle of being the flagship (a title previously held by the E-M5).

0 upvotes
Stitzer23
By Stitzer23 (7 months ago)

Camera of the year? Back to back OMDs. Sweet.

5 upvotes
Total comments: 2127
678910