Previous page Next page

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review

Buy on GearShop$1,399.005 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

Comments

Total comments: 2140
45678
Yacht Master
By Yacht Master (10 months ago)

I am sold,

3 upvotes
Vinc T
By Vinc T (10 months ago)

Camera of the Year 2013!

21 upvotes
Zvonimir Tosic
By Zvonimir Tosic (10 months ago)

Wait for Pentax K-3 ... them we'll have two cameras of the year.

4 upvotes
daqk
By daqk (10 months ago)

1. Too Expensive!
2. No Flash?

4 upvotes
homzy
By homzy (10 months ago)

I don't think a pop-up flash has ever proven good enough for the space it wastes, it's just common sense to eliminate it.

11 upvotes
white shadow
By white shadow (10 months ago)

You can't have a built-in flash if the body is going to be weather proof. The EP-5 is meant for those who need one.

All Pro cameras don't have built-in flash. Check out Canon 1DX, 5DMk3 and Nikon D4.

All Pro bodies won't be cheap. Check out those from Canon and Nikon.

Gourmet food are not cheap either. Stay with sandwiches and fast food for low price. I do that sometimes.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
Fleabag
By Fleabag (10 months ago)

Oly E5 pop up flash and weatherproof

4 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (10 months ago)

E-P5 is a built-in flash and it is not weather proof.

E3 and E5 had a built-in flash and they're weather proof.

E-M1 has empty space in the fake prism, between the viewfinder and the flash hot shoe where a flash would naturally be located. The flash was purposely omitted and not for technical reasons.

1 upvote
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (10 months ago)

Everything is to expensive except the Sony A3000 and so far, everybdy hates it.
Stop whining about price, its a stupid hobby.

1 upvote
T3
By T3 (10 months ago)

@white shadow - there are plenty of weather sealed bodies that have built-in flashes. Take a look at the Canon 7D:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCT-YMgjm9k

Or the various Pentax bodies:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eo61t5fH6Qw

Yes, these cameras were frozen in a block of ice, buried in sand, rinsed off in a shower, etc. And yes, they do have built-in flashes.

0 upvotes
Macx
By Macx (10 months ago)

And for that matter: This camera is still weatherproof with the supplied clip-on flash.

1 upvote
Camera Jedi
By Camera Jedi (10 months ago)

Pop up flashes have their limitations for sure but they are so handy filing out shadows in daylight shots of faces they should be essential on any walk about camera.

0 upvotes
white shadow
By white shadow (10 months ago)

One must be careful when interpreting a manufacturer's claim / definition of "weatherproof". Often, a manufacturer would make claims for marketing purposes. One must determine whether they mean "drizzle proof", "splash proof", "rain proof" or one can pour a bucket of water over it. How about the duration of exposure? Most manufacturers are silent on this.

I remember Canon was making claim that the 7D is "weatherproof" but they were careful to qualify that it is up to the standard of the EOS1N series of the film era. DPR has also taken note of this in their review.

So, the degree of weatherproofing varies from camera to camera. The area around the pop up flash would be most prone to leakage if too much moisture sips in. Thus, those cameras without a pop up flash would pose less problems.

I do not know about you but I wouldn't want to stand in the rain too long even if I am using the Canon 1DX with the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS Mk2.

0 upvotes
rfsIII
By rfsIII (10 months ago)

Popup flash is lifesaver for triggering off camera flash. It is also great to use at -1 2/3 or -2 as fill flash to chase color casts out of shadows without affecting exposure. Everything on a camera is useful in some way.

0 upvotes
Oly500Enew
By Oly500Enew (10 months ago)

read it again..it has a clip on flash. Just like the EM-5. There for those who need it, waste of space for others.

0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (10 months ago)

It looks like a great little camera but as a proud Olympus owner, I wish they would make the "OLYMPUS" on the strap a little larger.

5 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

like one wear a suit with large embroidered Armani ... Zegna.

Comment edited 20 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
dylanbarnhart
By dylanbarnhart (10 months ago)

The huge number of comments comes from the realization that:

1. Fourthird is dead - replaced by micro Fourthird. I doubt any more Panasonic DSLR will be made. Probably no 4/3rd lenses neither, since AF is faster on m43 lenses.

2. Sensor based phase detection autofocus is the future. Panasonic, Canon, Fuji, Nikon are all doing it.

4 upvotes
rusticus
By rusticus (10 months ago)

Four Thirds has always been dead to me -
mFT but I find great

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

Oly 4/3" should never be made. Pana 4/3" should have a shorter flange back but otherwise a much better design and the right direction to go.

Oly just followed others to have on sensor PDAF. I don't think they should mention their old 4/3" mount because it's really a shame that they better cover up.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 14 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
blohum
By blohum (10 months ago)

Both Olympus and Panasonic have been involved in both 43 and m43...

0 upvotes
bofo777
By bofo777 (10 months ago)

Four thirds may be dead but my SHG lenses still outperform your mFTstuff...but honestly I can't wait to put my 35-100 2.0 on the new EM-1....then you will see super IIQ....

2 upvotes
white shadow
By white shadow (10 months ago)

The 14-35 f/2.0 on the EM-1 would be good too if you have one.

Wish Olympus would make a Micro 4/3 version in the near future.

0 upvotes
rusticus
By rusticus (10 months ago)

I am amazed at> 1000 comments - it is an upgrade of the M-5, nothing else -
and the image quality of the E-M5 is equal

4 upvotes
Kjartan Haugen
By Kjartan Haugen (10 months ago)

The image quality is better than the M-5. Have a look at the RAW-comparison.

2 upvotes
Oleg Vinokurov
By Oleg Vinokurov (10 months ago)

It is not upgrade to e-m5, e-m1 is different line, same as pens. E-M5 upgrade will come latter. Though at this point i wonder how olympus will cripple lower end cameras. If they offer same or better features in much cheaper body, even without weather sealing, e-m1 sales certainly will be hurt.

1 upvote
lmqch
By lmqch (10 months ago)

If we talk with ISO 25600 is the right, but in low ISO is E-P5 best and so come E-M5 and last ie E-M1, so if you will have best IQ is the E-P5 so is IQ bosses with Olympus.

0 upvotes
Oly500Enew
By Oly500Enew (10 months ago)

At least Oleg gets it.

0 upvotes
c76
By c76 (10 months ago)

already over 1k comments before the real review? Olympus really make some waves in here.

8 upvotes
justmeMN
By justmeMN (10 months ago)

Some mirrorless enthusiasts complain about DSLRs being big, bulky, and heavy.

The EM-1 is 12% wider, 3% taller, and 22% heavier than the Canon SL1 / 100D, according to camerasizecom.

(Yes, they are in different price classes.)

3 upvotes
Adrian Van
By Adrian Van (10 months ago)

SL1 is smaller than the typical DSLR (including Rebels) and if you tried one in store, you would see how small. Actually would have preferred a bigger grip on SL1 when I held it in store. Some people may like it though.

1 upvote
white shadow
By white shadow (10 months ago)

Tried the SL1 / 100D. Great little DSLR body especially for ladies. Good value for money. A bit cost down with much simplified features but is still a full fledge DSLR. One won't feel handicap with it if you have some good lenses.

Try it with the excellent Canon EF 28mm f2.8 IS and the 50mm f/1.8. Excellent Combo with excellent result. The new STM kit lens is a no brainer too.

1 upvote
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (10 months ago)

SL-1 will take fine pictures but most people will find little joy in the experience.
The real fact is that the vast bulk of enthusiasts do want something that is a pleasure to handle and work with.
If they were just looking for a small instrument they would be using their phones.

Comment edited 32 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
T3
By T3 (10 months ago)

1. Yes, they are in a different price class, and are in a completely different build class, too!

2. Uh...do you plan on mounting lenses on these bodies? Many of the m4/3 lenses are downright tiny. So when you consider size, you really can't just consider the size of the body. You have to consider the size of the body, and the system's lenses.

3 upvotes
Albert Silver
By Albert Silver (10 months ago)

I have to agree. I always thought the main appeal of the mirrorless was near DSLR quality combined with severely reduced size. This one may be smaller than a DSLR, but it is still very big. You are buying a system that is 20% smaller, 50% worse, and every bit as expensive.

0 upvotes
DarkShift
By DarkShift (10 months ago)

@Albert

Thats hardly true. The OM-D EM-5 had, according to dxomark tests, better sensor IQ than any of the Canon APS-C made to date. That very much negates the sensor size issue...

These low budget APS-C DSRL cameras also suffer from lack of features and EM-1 will smash them to pieces literally. In practise those small low magnification OVF finders are just pain to use compared to excellent high magnification EVF. Shooting speed is much slower than with OM-D models (4 fps vs 9/10 fps), raw buffer is limited, video lacks seriously because of no IBIS that OM-D has etc. You get what you pay for though...

0 upvotes
Oly500Enew
By Oly500Enew (10 months ago)

It's a hybrid basically. MFT has really micro and larger micro sizes. Diff needs for diff folks. Just like your Big FF.

0 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (10 months ago)

Photographyblog has a series of shots, and raw files to download. I have seen the pictures, they are great, but not exceptional and not worth to pay 2800 for the kit. I even think, when comparing my M5 shots, that those are better and more sharp. But, since I did not made them, I can't confirm, I wait my friend to get this camera and I shoot a series of pictures to get a real idea. I have downed the raw files and wait PS to support them. I see no reason to change over to this camera, only the few more features can justify this. I prefer the shots published online from GX-7, they look much better to me as such, sharper and better balance in light and color all over.

3 upvotes
pdelux
By pdelux (10 months ago)

if you have EM5 (or any camera) and it fills your needs, there is no reason to change.

2 upvotes
white shadow
By white shadow (10 months ago)

The EM5 is already a very capable camera if you have one. There is little need to get the EM1. Perhaps, the new 12-40mm f/2.8 will make a bigger difference. The 12-50mm lens which came with the EM5 is a compromise.

For a bit more on the GX7, you can check out the recent comments on:

luminous-landscape.com

It is much better for video (if that is important) but have a few quirks.

0 upvotes
ntsan
By ntsan (10 months ago)

For people complaining the DoF is too deep to test CAF, Gorden from Cameralab have test the E-M1 with 90-250mm F2.8 for the same event
http://cameralabs.com/reviews/Olympus_OMD_EM1/sample_images.shtml

1 upvote
Donald Chin
By Donald Chin (10 months ago)

And the lady on the horse back look OFF! ISO 1600 looks terrible too!

0 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (10 months ago)

so much talk about a camera nobody will buy except a few m43 fanboys.

2 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (10 months ago)

That is why it is the top selling camera on Amazon at the moment then and why the amount of pro photographers new to Olympus are increasing.

7 upvotes
rikyxxx
By rikyxxx (10 months ago)

This camera will be bought by m43 users, not fanboys.
Fanboys are people like you, i.e. (stupid) talibans obsessed by things not important at all.
Cameras are just objects, get a life.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
12 upvotes
ABM Barry
By ABM Barry (10 months ago)

Well Mr. Henry. Are your prepared to put your money where your mouth is:
... "nobody will buy except a few m43 fanboys."

I bet you $10,000 that people will buy this camera.

In fact I would expect that anyone with half a brain on this forum topic would take you up too, ... and win!

The question has to be asked: Why are you wasting your time reading and then commenting?

You have to be stupid to do that in the first place?

Then again, ... I look at your comment, .. I rest my case!

"Stupid is as Stupid dose"

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
6 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (10 months ago)

Hm, why not do "rolling review" instead of "first impressions review"?

Either its first impressions, or second.. or review. It just sounds stupid this way, sorry.

About camera. Dont like idea of pixels going MIA cause of AF. Canon did this right seems to me. You have both, AF on sensor and full size pixels.

1 upvote
alan49
By alan49 (10 months ago)

at 200 iso EM5 seems sharper to me ???

1 upvote
lmqch
By lmqch (10 months ago)

Yes on ISO 200 is E-M5 more sharp, but i seems the E-P5 is little bit better

0 upvotes
babalu
By babalu (10 months ago)

Amazon rubbing their hands, expected surge in DSLM's and lenses sales...pre-xmas business .

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
rxbot
By rxbot (10 months ago)

Would be interesting to know how many 4/3s users would pick GH3 over E-M1 for video and GX7 over E-M1 for form factor and E-M5 over E-M1 for $550 cost savings.

6 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (10 months ago)

Would be interesting to know how many 4/3 users will buy another Olympus period.

5 upvotes
tjbates
By tjbates (10 months ago)

I agree with all three as written.

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

E-M5 with a grip sounds good (though looks awkward, would prefer an E-M5s with no shutter button) but I like the G5/G6 line for they fit my hands well (and quite cheap as P&S, so cheap that I don't care weather sealing).

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (10 months ago)

The EM1 is a non-starter for video; so, thats an easy win for GH3.

The GX7 not only has the desired rangefinder form factor, but, its also $400 cheaper... AND has better video as well... easy win for GX7.

The EM5 has the same image quality as the EM1, same formfactor, etc, etc. Its hard to pay over 50% more for 1/8000 shutter and a bit more RAW buffer.

The only reason to get EM1 is if you have bag of 43 lenses.

1 upvote
DT200
By DT200 (10 months ago)

"The only reason to get EM1 is if you have bag of 43 lenses."
The improved C-AF focusing works on all micro four thirds lenses too. You may have missed that.
The 70D is hot camera for the same reason. Sony will have a similar Alpha too.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

> bag of 43 lenses

old SLR 4/3" lenses were designed to low standard. peripheral qualities were relatively high at low cost-performance.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (10 months ago)

> old SLR 4/3" lenses were designed to low standard. peripheral qualities were relatively high at low cost-performance.

In fact, 43 lenses are far superior. They were telecentric by design and did not depend on automagical software corrections. The only drawback was that they had lousy bokeh aside from the 150 and 35-100.

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

the whole design of Oly 4/3" was based on wrong understanding of imaging device.

0 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (10 months ago)

would be interesting to know how many buy a NEX-6 for form factor and saving 1200$ on the kit price. Can one compare this, maybe. But on the end, look at the specs and you compare, sealed body, better lens. Now, if you compare IQ only, and the pricing, you go to the NEX, there is no question about this. The result counts, and the one of the NEX remains definitely better.

0 upvotes
Oleg Vinokurov
By Oleg Vinokurov (10 months ago)

Sorry, but there is big question, lenses. Why in the world would you buy most expensive and highest line body just to use cheap kit lens? m43 has plenty of other cheaper bodies with similar iq to e-m1.

Though nex-6 totally fails more reasonable e-m1 kit, that one with f2.8 zoom. Come again, when sony will finally release something similar. For now only new f4 comes close, but is as expensive, as f2.8 oly zoom and almost same size too.

0 upvotes
kecajkerugo
By kecajkerugo (10 months ago)

from Mike's blog.
... and whilst the D600 still holds a bit of an advantage in image quality, it’s not as much as you might think; less in practical application; far more of the difference will come down to shot discipline and how the images are processed. And that’s assuming pixels are going to be peeped: they’re close enough that even at 100% it takes a reasonably trained eye to spot the difference. Everybody will see the composition first, of course. Even if we’d had DX cameras in the mix, the results would be even closer still – if not an even match..... Most of the difference is due to the optics. Yet despite its sensor, the D600 lags behind in every other specification; it’s not until you hit the full-fat D4 that you can match frame rates or environmental sealing. Bottom line: there is simply nothing quite like the E-M1 at the moment – a very compact professional system camera.

15 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (10 months ago)

> D600 still holds a bit of an advantage in image quality

A "bit of an advantage"? A comparison with the D7100 would be more appropriate. The D600 IQ is close to class leading for all FFs. It's a bit unrealistic to think EM-1 is going to compete with it for IQ, no matter how the author wants to spin it.

> the D600 lags behind in every other specification

The D600 is an entry-level FF DSLR, but "every other specs"? How about:

9 cross type sensors, 24 mp FF sensor, 14-bit RAW, 1080@24/25/30p, 720@60p, uncompressed HDMI out, Mic/Headphone Jack, 2 SD Slots.

Not to mention the 100% Pentaprism VF, F-mount and Creative Lighting System.

Comment edited 11 minutes after posting
10 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

think we have to see if the image quality of E-M1 is improved from E-M5 first. it looks more noisy which is a good news to me (if it means less RAW cooking).

@marike6,
Pentax can almost beat D600 by cooking itself.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (10 months ago)

> Pentax can almost beat D600 by cooking itself.

I don't know that Pentax cooks anything, but their best camera, the K-5 IIs doesn't "almost beat" the D600. It's a great camera though.

DxOMark Sports (Low-Light) Scores

D600 2980 ISO

K-5 IIs 1208 ISO

EM-5 826 ISO

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

okay, I'm not good at DxOMark numbers. I was trying to say that Sony sensors got digtal output. so anything that Pentax do to improve "image quality" they have to do in digital.

same for Olympus if they did use Sony sensors. not much different if they use Pana ones. the "quality" comes from digital processing.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (10 months ago)

@yabokkie

Pentax and Nikon are absolutely great at getting more out of Sony sensors than even Sony (see K-5/D7000). Must be magic pixel dust. Cheers.

4 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (10 months ago)

Maybe it's because Pentax and Nikon have always been camera companies.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

> absolutely great at getting more out of Sony sensors than even Sony

because Sony sensors have digital output, whatever those "great" things are, anyone can do the same with a PC using Photoshop or Dfine.

and those things are "great" because they destroy details in the image.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Tape5
By Tape5 (10 months ago)

The total number of comments exceeding 1000?

Respect.

8 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (10 months ago)

Adobe, over 1000 comments? Disrespect.

7 upvotes
tjbates
By tjbates (10 months ago)

I'm one of the many selling my DSLR gear and now enjoying the benefits of m4/3 for capturing people. My 5DMK2 is still in my kit for landscape/ architecture photos, but honestly I really don't need it.

I mostly photograph my kids. Back in 2008 I thought getting the "best" was getting a FF DSLR. To my surprise, a few years later, I discovered for many situations that applied to me, that this not necessarily true. Now with a m4/3 camera, I'm nailing almost all of my shots due to face recognition.
Always eye ball sharp. My composition is not compromised due to the silly diamond shaped focus arrangement and my lenses are extremely sharp and contrasty at their widest aperture. Not so for my Canon L glass. No more stopping down to get a sharp shot. For me, the bokeh argument is dead.

And now without doubt, for many who have actually tried m4/3, it is abundantly clear that handling, speed and accuracy is no longer owned by FF. FF and their slapping mirrors are a hang over from film days.

34 upvotes
G1Houston
By G1Houston (10 months ago)

Well said, me too. Moreover, the tiltable screen makes it easy to shoot at their eye levels so we do not have to look down at them.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
3 upvotes
Antonio Rojilla
By Antonio Rojilla (10 months ago)

Considering that you are mixing up bokeh and DOF, not sure of the value of your comment... And FF and mirrors are completely different things too, and in fact it's safe to say that FF well be all mirrorless sooner or later. A system being mirrorless or not has nothing to do with the size of the sensor.

2 upvotes
tjbates
By tjbates (10 months ago)

Antonio. Sorry, I meant the DOF argument.
I think you get the idea.

"FF may all be mirror-less sooner or later."
Mirror or no mirror - FF or not, the laws of physics will always determine the size of the attached lenses to cover a sensor. Hence one of the main reasons for the popularity of m4/3. Tiny lenses!

3 upvotes
ppastoris
By ppastoris (10 months ago)

2tjbates
>Tiny lenses!

And therefore less light hitting the sensor (=> higher noise) and less DoF control. You can't have both - small lenses and low noise and more DOF control :). Laws of optics.

>No more stopping down to get a sharp shot
Just don't forget that a stopped down lens on FF will give you the same output as a 2-stop faster m43 lens, e.g. f2.8 on ff vs f1.4 on m43.

0 upvotes
Lab D
By Lab D (10 months ago)

The 4/3 sensor size IMHO is the best balance between size and results. With a pancake lens cameras are pocketable, but this E-M1 will yield high end results. No need for two systems like so many have now.

12 upvotes
andy le anh
By andy le anh (10 months ago)

Go Pentax Go!!!
Pentax K5 anyone?!!??

1 upvote
57even
By 57even (10 months ago)

Canon is next, maybe Nikon soon after. Both have new sensor-based PDAF systems for existing sensors. Sony putting out models which look like SLRs already to get everyone "in the mood" which have PDAF and Alpha lens support.

I guess for a while, both will sell alongside each other but it's clear which direction the industry wants to go. Pretty soon you will be able to get a reasonable level of AF with legacy glass on new mirrorless models, so you will have a real choice.

I can see low end SLRs being phased out in a few years, though enthusiast models may take longer.

2 upvotes
Winston Loo
By Winston Loo (10 months ago)

Some folks dont realise another very important milestone with the announcement of the EM-1. There are now 65 native lenses available for the format. This system is now #3 just behind Canon and Nikon and leapfrogging Sony... This is a very credible system.

26 upvotes
Ferling
By Ferling (10 months ago)

Have to agree. While not a fan of Oly (tried them some years ago and hate the controls placement), all this bashing of others gear is pointless considering that most folks stick with a particular vendor in order capitalize on the lens investment. Something that hasn't changed for decades.

The other issue is controls placement, (which hopefully changes very little from model to model). Once your hooked, it would take something very significant to consider a switch with regards to the total cost.

I'm all for Canon having competition to keep them on their toes, and giving reason to release more budget for their engineers to continue innovating. I'm sure those in the Nikon camp would also agree.

5 upvotes
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (10 months ago)

Olympus never intends to make a lot of money off of selling this camera body. What they want to do is convince their loyal customers to switch from 4/3s to m4/3s and keep their legacy glass but also buy new m4/3s lenses as well.

Olympus doesn't make a lot of money off of cameras. However, they could make a lot of money off of lenses if they can sell enough cameras. Most people stop buying cameras once they find one that fits their needs. There is always room in the bag for more lenses though.

10 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (10 months ago)

But why they place a huge margin on that camera if they don't have to make money on the camera but on lenses? Only existing users and fanboys will buy this camera over cheaper better competition, and they already have Oly glass. No new customers will enter the system like that.

1 upvote
Adrian Van
By Adrian Van (10 months ago)

I would have to respectfully disagree. This camera has market potential to serious prosumers and some pros, and possibly lower priced cameras later on in the next gen. models with the "on sensor PDAF" will also challenge the DSLR for consumers. The EM1 even at its price is a very good alternative to Nikon D7100 or Canon 7D somewhere around the same price for body. Okay, it is slightly more for body than those 2, but wait 6 months for small drop in price, (or buy now). PDAF may be better in a DSLR (non-liveview), but in "liveview" only the 70D has a similar continuous auto focus PD on chip system. I would imagine Nikon will be working on same solution in their next DSLR models, but Olympus and Canon have it now! (and maybe some Sony models?).

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
G1Houston
By G1Houston (10 months ago)

"Olympus never intends to make a lot of money off of selling this camera body."

Based on recent Olympus statement that they are rethinking the idea of selling cheap cameras, which are losing money, they will most likely position themselves to sell higher end models with higher margins so they can still make money without a large market share. I thus think the EM1 is priced to make money. For all other camera makers, the strategy is always to lure you in with an entry model and hope you will buy lenses and "upgrade" to more expensive ones down the road, not the other way around. When the camera is cheap, people will buy out of impulse.

1 upvote
Adrian Van
By Adrian Van (10 months ago)

Unless you need FF camera for ultimate low light and top AF speed for a working professional such as an event photographer, then a camera at this price makes sense to prosumers and advanced enthusiasts. For overall IQ getting closer to D7100 and 7D (APSC sensor) in many areas (not all perhaps), many of us would need only this camera not the Nikon or Canon APSC, as it does a lot indeed and is small and lighter and smaller lenses (so we can carry more at once) with good IQ and feature rich body. A solid competitor to DSLR.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
white shadow
By white shadow (10 months ago)

If one has not bought into the Canon system, for example, and just want to have an effective smaller camera for travel, this new camera would be a good alternative.

The 12-40 f/2.8 constant aperture lens selling for about $1,000.00 is actually very reasonably priced for its quality. Given its lens construction, it should perform well and would be definitely better than the 12-50mm. A welcome improvement.

However, if one has bought into the Canon system with some excellent "L" and Zeiss lenses, one can take a look at the 70D as a smaller backup to a full frame DSLR.

For me, despite having a full frame DSLR with quite a few professional grade lenses, I still use a Micro 4/3 system for travel especially when travelling light is the priority. If one has gone to Tibet or anywhere above 15,000 feet will know what I mean.

0 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (10 months ago)

1000th post!

4 upvotes
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (10 months ago)

Sorry but you were a little late. Yours was 1001. :(

2 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (10 months ago)

See ya at the 2000th post!

7 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (10 months ago)

Impressive that Olympus fanboys managed to push it so far.

2 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (10 months ago)

All that fake whining about sensor size, discredited arguments about equivalency and not-so-innocent comments about the system's/company's vialibility really helped stir the pot. You really played your part well, Plastek.

It took some extra lobbying to get DPReview to repost their first impression reviews on the frontpage to generate more views. They're asking for their payment in return and my notes here tell me you're late in your monetary contributions to the DPReview pot. Time to step up to the plate, man.

8 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

1000 posts = 1 flood

0 upvotes
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (10 months ago)

1000 comments. Seems like this camera has garnered some interest.

5 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (10 months ago)

Trolls and fanboys failed.

Or ironically, they contributed in raising the profile of this camera. Generating a few more sales/pre-orders in Olympus' favor.

2 upvotes
Adrian Van
By Adrian Van (10 months ago)

For more EM1 photos/reviews: Check out RobinWong.blogspot for photos of C-AF tracking of skate boarders and many photos from the new EM1 for sport and moving people/vehicles and also macro photos in his first 2 articles on EM1. It shows the large buffer around 41 photos in Raw S-AF and 50 Raw photos in C-AF high speed mode, and you can download images for review.

CAF looks like it works very well in his tests. Robin now an employee of Olympus only recently (a few blog posts ago) now has even faster access to Olympus gear it seems for review. Worth checking out and a great read.

Great job, finally getting that job at Olympus, you certainly do deserve it Robin!!

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
12 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (10 months ago)

CAF? What's that?

0 upvotes
Adrian Van
By Adrian Van (10 months ago)

Sorry meant C-AF not CAF (continuous auto focus). I corrected it in paragraph 1.

2 upvotes
mapgraphs
By mapgraphs (10 months ago)

Thanks for the heads up - link to Robin's review, part 1:

http://robinwong.blogspot.com/2013/09/olympus-om-d-e-m1-review-introduction.html

Like the Ming Thein preview, well worth the read.

2 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (10 months ago)

so this robin did a positive review about olympus gear while having or seeking a job at olympus... is that what your saying? :-)

5 upvotes
Adrian Van
By Adrian Van (10 months ago)

Robin is an honest person if you follow his blog and well respected by those that read his blog. He will list any shortcomings on product if he sees it, and he will comment positively from a user review if he likes it. He will back it up with photos to support his opinion. Not really different than what staff at dpreview do. Robin is highly respected in Malaysia which is his area and around the world, with currently 6 million page views. Read his recent article on getting the job, for more insight. For years he has commented on gear without getting paid. He still intends on doing honest reviews as usual. He admits to be an Olympus fanboy, but that is nothing new. So what?... Some of us are too. I like Olympus and Nikon myself.
Kirk Tuck another respected reviewer, also tells it like it is, with double the page views. Both are worth reading. Kirk Tuck uses a lot of Sony product but also other brands.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
10 upvotes
ThePhilips
By ThePhilips (10 months ago)

"money corrupts."

Read it for the images. Robin is a practical guy. The first sign of his corruption would be that he says something without showing an image for it.

1 upvote
Adrian Van
By Adrian Van (10 months ago)

The proof is in the photos. Robin shows that C-AF works in latest camera. And you can download the original photos to examine this. This is a user review with his impressions about the photos and camera.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (10 months ago)

I'm sure it's a wonderful camera but I wouldn't be too quick to congratulate somebody for getting a job with Olympus.

2 upvotes
Antonio Rojilla
By Antonio Rojilla (10 months ago)

He has just a little more credibility than an Olympus executive.

0 upvotes
ntsan
By ntsan (10 months ago)

More credibility than a lot of keyboard analysis, a picture worth a thousand words

1 upvote
white shadow
By white shadow (10 months ago)

First, they bash Olympus and the new camera. Now, they are bashing Robin.

What's next?

Hold on tight Robin, there are always many enemies out there.

2 upvotes
Paul Amyes
By Paul Amyes (10 months ago)

Robin is nota one eyed supporter of Olympus, he also uses Sony stuff, and has reviewed other other equipment. He's a genuinelly nice and honest bloke who has given a lot to the photo community of Malaysia and the rest of the world with his blog.. The reason why he's popular is that he's positive in his outlook, he's practical and he calls a spade a spade. If he thinks something could be better he'll say so. He'll be a very good assest for Olympus.

1 upvote
white shadow
By white shadow (10 months ago)

@ Paul Amyes

You are right. He will be a very good asset for Olympus. Now, at least we know we have someone in there who will make sure the "top mamagement" or the product development department will do the right thing in the future for the benefit of eveybody.

Hey Paul, your recent wildflower photos are quite good, even with a humble LX5. That's the way to go.

I also drove around the wildflower belt north of Perth right up to Mullewa about 3 years ago. Absolutely beautiful.

I would be driving around Adelaide and perhaps will be exploring the Breakaways around Coober Pedy this Christmas.

Just came back from Prague, Ceski Krumlov, Vienna and Budapest. Marvellous! Forget the cameras, the beers are better.

1 upvote
DT200
By DT200 (10 months ago)

Were the C-AF tests done with a macro lens? If so that would be even more impressive. I have never owned a macro lens that focused quickly.

0 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (10 months ago)

DPReview claims it was, but the 60mm Macro lens they've used does hunt a lot in actual macro photography. Not unusual for a macro lens (MF usually recommended), but it's a fair warning if you're planning to buy it.

2 upvotes
Heefe
By Heefe (10 months ago)

Funny how people are so obsessed with the size of the sensor...

18 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

the problem is not the small size of the sensor.
it's the small size of lens aperture.

6 upvotes
b0k3h
By b0k3h (10 months ago)

small? 2.8 is considered fast for a zoom with this range

4 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (10 months ago)

Thats because sensor size is directly related to image quality... sure, why would anyone care about that? Lets all shoot with cellphones.

3 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (10 months ago)

b0k3h - ever heard of diffraction? Ever heard of depth of field? Ever heard of light gathering ability?
These are a 3 major fields where small sensors always will loose.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
6 upvotes
McFern
By McFern (10 months ago)

FF, APS-C, and 4/3 are all small format and their needs to be a jump to medium format or large format to see the difference with the unaided eye in a 20X30 hanging on the wall from 6 feet away. And then there will have to be a comparison format 20X30 to note the difference. It does not matter.

8 upvotes
DT200
By DT200 (10 months ago)

Sensor size does NOT determine image quality. Compare the first Nikon 1s from last year to the RX100 from last year. It is the technology in the sensor that matter more which is why almost everyone is using Sony technology now.
This is why so many FF shooters often leave their beasts at home and carry an RX100 in their pocket.

1 upvote
Plastek
By Plastek (10 months ago)

Sensor size DOES determine image quality as long as you make a fair comparisons and take into account the same technology level.

"This is why so many FF shooters often leave their beasts at home and carry an RX100 in their pocket." - they do so for the same reason why they sometimes use green Auto mode - there are moments where you just want to "save a memory" - not necessary make a best possible photograph.

Comment edited 25 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

I'm sorry for duplicated posts.

> 2.8 is considered fast for a zoom with this range

it's not. f/2.8 is a fast zoom on 35mm format. but we cannot compare f-numbers on different sensors if the image quality is what we want.

to get the same image quality, a lens has to gather the same amount of light to the sensor frame. at a certain angle of view (solid angle in square degrees) we need same aperture area to gather that light regardless of sensor format.

is f/2.8 a larger aperture lens on 4/3"?
12-35/2.8 at 35mm = pi * (35 / 2.8 / 2)^2 = 123mm2
24-70/2.8 at 70mm = pi * (70 / 2.8 / 2)^2 = 491mm2

one of the charactistics of a lens aperture Plastek listed - light gethering capacity. the light gethering capacity of an f/2.8 FourThirds lens is about 1/4 of that of a 35mm format one.

it's not the sensor. sensor can gather no light.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
fakuryu
By fakuryu (10 months ago)

@yabokkie

Isn't supposed to be f2.8 is f2.8 in any format, the light gathering capability of the sensor is a different thing?

4 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

> the light gathering capability of the sensor

a sensor has zero light gathering capability. every photon hitting a sensor has to come through the lens aperture first.

at a certain angle of view, every photographic effect that can be affected by lens aperture is done when the light goes through the apeture and whatever behind it, whatever glass or whatever format will have no say (they may be able to "degrade" the image within the capacity).

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
bcalkins
By bcalkins (10 months ago)

'There are moments where you just want to "save a memory" - not necessary make a best possible photograph.'

It is a narrow view of photography to think that 'best possible' and larger sensor are the same thing. Undoubtably, in a studio shootout the larger sensor wins, but in the real world of creating images the camera that helps you execute your vision wins. For many types of photography that may be the smaller camera/system. A few images and uses rely upon absolute IQ for their success, most rely upon concept, composition, etc. The latter are all free to pursue!

3 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (10 months ago)

"a sensor has zero light gathering capability" - detach the lens, shoot a photo. If it will be black - you are right. If it's not - you are wrong.

0 upvotes
liquidsquid
By liquidsquid (10 months ago)

OMG, for all of the "experienced" photographers around here, they sure fail at math.

F2.8 (or any F value for that matter) of full frame exposure time for the same ISO ratings is the SAME as exposure time on a smaller sensor like m4/3 at equivalent focal length. How hard is that? The ONLY difference is DOF.

Sure light gathering ability is greater on the larger lens, but that is to cover a larger area of sensor, so the light is spread over a greater area. The light intensity on ANY GIVEN SURFACE AREA of the sensor is the same. Note AREA not the same as PIXEL.

6 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

> detach the lens, shoot a photo.

m4/3" still gets a smaller aperture (mount throat) but anyway, enjoy.

> exposure time for the same ISO ratings is the SAME

definitely it is.
definitely it won't give you the same quality of image.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
b0k3h
By b0k3h (10 months ago)

thats why the term is "depth of field" - not shallowness of field/focus. sometimes you want the focal depth without losing shutter speed.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

> sometimes you want the focal depth without losing shutter speed.

but we don't have a choice. we always get same results. everything will be the same regardless of sensor size. everything is decided already when the light enters the aperture.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (10 months ago)

Physical aperture size isn't much more useful than DxO mark scores at determining overall image quality - it'll give you a ball-park noise level to expect, but sensor technology and lens optical quality are large factors that physical aperture alone doesn't determine.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

but DxOMark lens-camera scores cannot be carried across different sensor formats.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
kecajkerugo
By kecajkerugo (10 months ago)

sensor size, light gathering capability, look at left corner and see how the XX is better than the YYY.....
Anyone making photos these days?
I just see that this camera DOES MAKE greate pictures and needs only a good fotograph behind it to compose and come up with an interesting subject. Pixel trols go to a cell phone forums to argue about 20 M samsungs

2 upvotes
ijustloveshooting
By ijustloveshooting (10 months ago)

what a waste of a great body and specs....with this sensor, it's even worse than a 300$ sony nex-3N...

11 upvotes
gerard smits
By gerard smits (10 months ago)

What a stupid comment !!!, sensor is small buth doing a great job !!

25 upvotes
pdelux
By pdelux (10 months ago)

The sensor punches well above its weight. Another moronic comment from the un-informed

27 upvotes
ignatio
By ignatio (10 months ago)

@ijustloveshooting Shooting rabbits I presume?

3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

a small sensor usually cannot take as many photons as a large one, putting a limit on the highest image quality but otherwise has no effect on performance especially low light, which is decided by the lens.

for example, at same shutter speed, Sony f/4 zooms deliver about 1/3 stop worse image quality than m4/3" f/2.8 ones.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (10 months ago)

Do they? Most of Sony's zooms stopped down to f/4 give a great IQ, while m4/3 zooms at f/2.8 are wide open showing quite significant issues with distortion, vignetting, often also corner sharpness.

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (10 months ago)

@yabokkie you're assuming that both sensors have the same efficiency at capturing photons. Sensor efficiency is improving all the time, as proven by high iso becoming less and less noisy on newer sensors compared to old sensors of the same size (be they 4/3, APS or FF).

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

@Plastek,

I don't think Sony E is better than m4/3" at the moment.
I do think Sony E may have a better future than m4/3" though.

> you're assuming that both sensors have the same efficiency at capturing photons.

there are errors just like tides and waves.
they exist but don't change the nature of the issue.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
kecajkerugo
By kecajkerugo (10 months ago)

yet another yabokkie - like "valuable" comment.....
Childret shall not be allowed to post here.

0 upvotes
gbbiv
By gbbiv (10 months ago)

Thanks for the update... what I'd really love to know is the focus behavior with the 35-100... in particular how it compares with the E-5 in low light, say dusk or street light. And also how it does in a significant back light situation... say focusing on a face in the shade with the sun right behind the persons head.

Those are the situations that get me in respect to portraiture and the E-5 was finally an Oly camera that performed at an acceptable level... really not interested in going backwards in this respect.

0 upvotes
stevez
By stevez (10 months ago)

The results certainly show a vast improvement in CAF with a MFT lens compared to the E-M5. Thanks for posting so quickly. I'm hoping to see some similar tests with a 4/3 lens with perhaps the 50-200 f2.8.

2 upvotes
Adrian Van
By Adrian Van (10 months ago)

Robin Wong will also be testing the 50-200 F2.8 with EM1 on his blogspot coming up soon and he will comment on speed of Four Thirds lens I would imagine.

1 upvote
Jogger
By Jogger (10 months ago)

Id like to see a continuous series of photos with the 75/1.8 at 1.8 of a runner running towards the camera.. .or maybe the 35-100/2.8 at 2.8 and 100mm. Just spot focus on the bib number and fire away.

The CAF samples so far have not proven anything. Also, what is the point of 9fps without focus.. .when would you ever use that?

1 upvote
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (10 months ago)

You honestly can't think of anything... oh dear...

Knowing when you could use it is the difference between a snapper and a photographer.

6 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (10 months ago)

I can think of quite a few:

Catching a fleeting smile from your kid sitting in a chair.

Skateboarder hitting the ramp upwards.

Macro of a drop of water falling onto a surface.

Something way up in the sky.

World Trade Center collapsing

Stop-motion, diorama effect

4 upvotes
stevez
By stevez (10 months ago)

How about bracketing where you don't want the camera to refocus between shots.

5 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (10 months ago)

Most of those are gimmick situations.. .e.g. the best way to capture a water drop is in fact with single shot and flash setup.. not blasting away at 9fps.. you would need a crasy bright cont. light source.

Bracketing involves shooting continuous series.. but, you wouldnt use 9fps... you would use bracketing mode so the camera changes setting between shots.

Stop motion??? Blasting away at 9 fps???

2 upvotes
pdelux
By pdelux (10 months ago)

please jogger, you obviously do not have children. Try taking a Single shot of a kid on a moving swing... i guarantee you you will have 99% out of focus.
Switch to 9 FPS youll probably get about 99% out of focus but you will save a lot of time and get the shot quicker.

1 upvote
Spunjji
By Spunjji (10 months ago)

You're right, Jogger, you use bracketing mode - which incidentally operates at a 9fps speed without autofocus. Your photos are taken (exposure length permitting) in roughly 1/3 of a second instead of, say, 1 second at 3fps. Great for handheld HDR.

You also completely ignored the skater comment, which is a shame as that sort of speed is useful in any sort of blink-and-you'll-miss-it scenario. It's fairly a cheesy way of getting the shot but in the end it's still about getting the shot, not how you got it.

1 upvote
Martin.au
By Martin.au (10 months ago)

I use 9fps regularly. You need some imagination.

3 upvotes
DukeCC
By DukeCC (10 months ago)

I mainly just want to add to the tally to push it along towards 1000 posts, but I will say that it does seem we are at the divergence point, where we will start to see what the true limits of the format are. It does seem to be the worst of both worlds--not as portable as smaller cameras, not as good as bigger cameras. The market will determine if it is good enough, and if it is small enough.

0 upvotes
fz750
By fz750 (10 months ago)

I do wonder what the real market is for M4/3 and even for similar cameras like the Nex range. I live i a pretty touristy (Switzerland) place, so see people shooting lanscapes and buildings and stuff all the time, have been on various holidays or trips this year (europe, switzerland, austria, germany, uk, france and once in Israel) around, but I have **not once** seen a M4/3 (other than my own) or Nex, just canikon D-SLR basically, 98% APS-C but some D6/800 and Canon 6D (ignoring all the mass of compact cameras obviously)

I have a E-PL2, use it most of the time it seems (in preference to a canon Eos, despite missing a viewfinder..) and really like it, so am interested in smaller format camera like the OM-D but wonder who is buying all these M4/3 & Nex cameras?

I doubt my subjective sample is representative of total sales! perhaps they more prevalent in some markets?

2 upvotes
Thorgrem
By Thorgrem (10 months ago)

Spend this summer a week in Barcelona. 40% of the camera's with interchangeable lenses where MILC's.

1 upvote
bluevellet
By bluevellet (10 months ago)

Point-and shoot upgraders.

DSLR owners looking for a more practical alternative to migrate to.

DLSR users wanting a back-up camera to complement their DSLR.

4 upvotes
hybert46
By hybert46 (10 months ago)

I am living in Switzerland as well and am seeing quite a few m4/3 and NEX cameras around. I think it is popular in Europe and you can see quite a few of them when you travel around in big cities. It is of course not even close to the popularity of entry-level DSLR with kit zoom.

Comment edited 25 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
fz750
By fz750 (10 months ago)

Bluevellet, obviously I get that, I bought one, but I just don't see them anywhere, but it's interesting that Thorgrem saw many in Barcelona...

thanks

0 upvotes
McFern
By McFern (10 months ago)

I see them most where there is a sizable walk from the car, places like college graduations where all the folks aren't camera literate or pull them from their bags, and places like Disney. They don't stand out like their larger and flashier (by design) Canikon kin that still have their advertising straps on.

0 upvotes
shademaster
By shademaster (10 months ago)

Paris last summer: about 30% CSC. All represented (I was surprised by the decent number of Samsung NX's -- which I own and never see in the US). Predominantly NEX. But lots of Panasonic too. Surprisingly few Olympus, but as many Olympus as Samsung. Some fuji (shot with a guy's X100s who was sitting next to me at a concert). Lots of asian faces holding the CSCs.

0 upvotes
b0k3h
By b0k3h (10 months ago)

we're neighbors, so ive been to all those places this year, and YES - they are prevalent in specific market.

the asian market are accepting of m4/3. whether its due to the size, or due to the relative "newness" of the technology, or marketing (i saw the e-m5 and sony j/v plastered all over hong kong subways)... but for sure it has minimal saturation in the euro and americas market

0 upvotes
johngraham
By johngraham (10 months ago)

I sometimes read two German outdoor forums (hiking, climbing, cycle tours, canoe tours etc.) and sometimes I take a look at new posts in the photography sections - a lot of outdoor people seem to be taking advantage of the smaller size and weight of mirror-less cameras - which makes sense because for these outdoor activities you have to carry the gear with you for more or less longer distances and rougher terrain than for shorter walks in the city or in a park or museum.

Comment edited 20 seconds after posting
1 upvote
fakuryu
By fakuryu (10 months ago)

Singapore has a lot of MILC shooters, surprisingly a lot of Fuji X users.

0 upvotes
Spunjji
By Spunjji (10 months ago)

The sad fact is that the people trolling in here about Full Frame are also the sort of people who stridently recommend DSLRs to people who don't need them. "Buy the Canikon with the expensive lens, then you can upgrade to Full Frame later for *list of irrelevant traits*".

So a lot of folks out there don't buy mirrorless because they don't know it exists, or get told by some gearhead with half a brain that they're inferior because *insert daft reason here*

0 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (10 months ago)

hybert46 - mirrorless sales in Europe are roughly 80% smaller than the DSLR sales. Last year they dropped by ~40% comparing to 2011.
(only market where mirrorless sales go significantly up is Japan)

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 54 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
hybert46
By hybert46 (10 months ago)

Plastek - Of course I am not saying that mirrorless are as popular as DSLR. I just say I can usually spot a few M43 or NEX when I spend the week-end at a touristic place in a big town in Europe. However, this number is usually way less than the number of tourists with a huge DSLR and who have absolutely not clue how to use it ;-)

0 upvotes
bcalkins
By bcalkins (10 months ago)

I live in a small town where you can't really even buy CSCs and at a recent concert saw a Nikon 1, a few MFT cams, Nex, Rebels, etc. Seems like they are out there.

0 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (10 months ago)

Rebels are not mirrorless.

0 upvotes
Nabilon
By Nabilon (10 months ago)

M43 is just still too expensive. Only recent models have caught up with the quality of APS-C, but you can still buy many cheap entry level DSLRs or even better older used bodies with excellent quality.

0 upvotes
vesa1tahti
By vesa1tahti (10 months ago)

Sensor ratings by DxO: Oly E-M5: 71, Nikon D7000: 80, Nikon D800E: 96. Rely on that. Small sensors- weaker IQ. Micro Four Thirds can't be competitive, sensor size MUST be APS-C or FF. Camera size has no matter, normal people can carry DSLR- cameras, others are too small.

6 upvotes
Thorgrem
By Thorgrem (10 months ago)

In the real world the picture quality of any mirrorless and dSLR camera that is made today is good enough. Even the old Canon APS-C sensor in the 70D is more than good enough. Maybe not for gear-heads or for people who rather compare numbers and pixel peep than go out and shoot. But for the most people, including professionals the IQ of any current 4/3/APS-C/FF/MF sensor is good enough for most of the jobs. And how big do you print really? Billboard size?

Comment edited 34 seconds after posting
19 upvotes
DELETED88781
By DELETED88781 (10 months ago)

Absolutely true and well said! although DxO is a joke

1 upvote
vesa1tahti
By vesa1tahti (10 months ago)

(Wall size). If you accept 'good enough' IQ, you can buy a 100€ PS- camera. Images from my Canon G2 from 2002 are good enough, but they aren't good enough when compared with IQ from today's cameras. Why not to purchase the best, for the same money?

1 upvote
bluevellet
By bluevellet (10 months ago)

You're not buying the best for the same money, you're buying a gimped FF camera with several missing features. Not just missing compared to the E-M1 but compared to pro FF models.

A camera is not just its sensor.

8 upvotes
Thorgrem
By Thorgrem (10 months ago)

Because every camera is a compromise. Even the camera of which you think is the best for the money. And what is the definition of the best? Is there a definition that counts for everybody? No, there isn't. Pre-orders already have proven that this expensive camera has it's place and audience. Deal with it.

4 upvotes
vesa1tahti
By vesa1tahti (10 months ago)

The best camera delivers the best IQ. All other properties in semiprofessional / professional cameras are very close to each other, almost similar. I also rely on professional tests, e.g. by DxO. I deal with the fact that even this camera has it's place and audience. But: sensor size IS too small, for very high quality of any size of prints. APS-C is minimum, FF is optimum.

1 upvote
McFern
By McFern (10 months ago)

Why not buy the best for the same money? Well that works for napkins but not for camera systems. My 50mm f2 is the best lens I've ever owned at f2 from 4X5 large format through Rollies and Mamiyas all the way down to today from 1975. This camera will allow me to continue to use that lens for the determinable future. And, once again, minute differences on an extreem enlargement does not matter to the eye for an 8X10 at arms length or 20X30 at six feet. Those differences are imperceptable. Its like me saying my spouse is better than yours because they are 2 weeks younger or a quarter inch taller or 2 seconds quicker in the 40. It does not matter. Give me a violin and I can't do a thing with it...give me my 50mm and a camera that will operate it and see the music. That is the real difference...me. Give you a geologist pick and say go find gold, nothing happens, but a geologist...well there you go.

3 upvotes
jtan163
By jtan163 (10 months ago)

So sensor size can't be medium format. It can only be APS-C?
If size is an issue how can APS-C be acceptable given that 35mm exists.
And how can 35mm e OK, given that MF exists?
And can;t be competitive in what? Benchmarks?
You know some people buy cameras to take piccies, not run benchmarks.

1 upvote
_P
By _P (10 months ago)

So I have couple of E-PL5 and D7000 prints, spitted out from Epson L-800 in 20x30cm sizes, in front of me right now. Even DxO guys couldn't say which is which simply because it is not possible... I'd call it "print therapy". Helps to stop wetting pants over DxO numbers and makes you free... :-)

5 upvotes
vesa1tahti
By vesa1tahti (10 months ago)

Pixel density (pixels/mm*mm) on the sensor has meaning. Larger pixels=better IQ.

0 upvotes
McFern
By McFern (10 months ago)

Still is not visable 20X30 hanging on the wall from 6 feet away. It still does not matter.

2 upvotes
Edwaste
By Edwaste (10 months ago)

DxO while useful, weigh a lot of their sensor ratings on high ISO performance. Few experienced m43 users expect the same IQ at high ISO situations as they would from a larger sensor. However, at base ISO IQ is very close to the best APS-C sensors.
Combined with it's superior IS, the new Olympus' are very useful tools for street photography or similar situations.
Personally if I'm shooting grand sweeping landscapes like mountain ranges I'll use FF.
Or I can drag out and dust off my 4x5 view camera and really give the pixel peepers something to look at.

2 upvotes
Winston Loo
By Winston Loo (10 months ago)

Gee.. read this
DXOMark
Canon 70D 68
Canon 700D 61 (same as GH2?)
Canon 100D 63

Panasonic GH3 71
EP5 72
EM5 71

So what was that? m4/3 wipes the floor of the latest Canon Sensor in the 70D and is better that most of the semi pro and consumer DSLRs. m4/3 is GOOD Enuff

8 upvotes
McFern
By McFern (10 months ago)

The physics of photography have not changed from film. FF, APS-C, and 4/3 are still small format and a jump to medium format or large format is needed to make a substantial difference. That why, in the world of small format, 2 more grapes in the crate don't make any difference. The photographer makes a difference, the camera that you have with you matters.

3 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (10 months ago)

Winston Loo - Canon is horrible in APS-C market, noone has doubts about that.
But any lacks in IQ is easily overweighted by vast choice of lenses and 2nd hand market - something several times greater than what you will find with m4/3.

2 upvotes
Winston Loo
By Winston Loo (10 months ago)

@plastek With the EM-1 launch, there are over 65 native lenses that can be used on this camera with equally good AF
m4/3 and 4/3. Suddenly this is the third largest system behind canikon, leapfrogging Sony.. What do you mean by "overweighted by vast choice of lenses" isnt 65 something?

0 upvotes
blohum
By blohum (10 months ago)

A quick count on wikipedia and there's around 60 MFT lenses and 30 FT lenses, plus all the hundreds of lenses that can be adapted for use... is that not enough choice for you?

0 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (10 months ago)

Winston Loo - There's over 100 native lenses for A-mount, and roughly 80 for K-mount. So... nope, not 3rd.

0 upvotes
kecajkerugo
By kecajkerugo (10 months ago)

yet another .....DxO...come on ...please STOP talking rubbish.
Look at pictures! What you see? I see high quality ones.
DxO just measure sensor, it does not measure anything which support final imgae creation.

And what about the lenses? Do you know that m4/3 format by definition creates beeetr pictures just because the light path is more straight and therefore less deformed so to speek?

So larger sensor formats will have to face this disadvantage compared to the m4/3. Glass quality is essential for quality picture so whya are talking only about sensors?

0 upvotes
massimogori
By massimogori (10 months ago)

1) The quality of the camera depends on the area of the sensor (corollary: IQ/surface is a constant for all sensors)

2) Any marketing effort made by anybody other than the maker of my own camera is a nonsense

3) The price of a camera I cannot afford or from another brand than my own camera is too high.

(...lots of experienced photographers, here...)

9 upvotes
b0k3h
By b0k3h (10 months ago)

disagreed

a m4/3 or 1" sensor of today provides superior performance to aps-c sensors of yesterdays...............

then you have the matter of pixel density. not just overall sensor surface area.

then there is sensor type, design, lens, processing, and other things that impact IQ

2 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (10 months ago)

"a m4/3 or 1" sensor of today provides superior performance to aps-c sensors of yesterdays..............."
...and 2/3" sensors of today provides superior performance to APS-C sensors of 4 years ago.

There's plenty of things that affect quality. In either case though the ultimate truth always works: Assuming same technology level - smaller sensor will always be inferior to the larger one.

2 upvotes
Spunjji
By Spunjji (10 months ago)

bok3h, I think you missed the intended sarcasm in massimogori's post. :)

1 upvote
kecajkerugo
By kecajkerugo (10 months ago)

smaller sensor will not always be inferior to larger just because ther is something else than the size, and this something else is sometimes by definition better on the smaller sensors cameras. The light is less deformed on the m43 than APS-C bfore it hits the sensor...read about this. So will have less noisy but also less sharp pictures on the APS-C.

0 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (10 months ago)

you don´t need a long preview for this camera two words sum it up...

TOO EXPENSIVE

i would never pay more then 500 euro for a m43 camera.
for me m43 will always be only a "second" camera.
and as most m43 user i only have a kit lens for my E-PL3.
yes most m43 buyer, as statistcis show, have only a kit lens.
we speak about the majority here not some enthusiasts.

the real money goes to my much more versatile (yes it IS bigger and heavyer... i don´t care) DSLR system.

that´s why i doubt this will be a big financial success for oly.
it´s a good camera.. sure.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
Thorgrem
By Thorgrem (10 months ago)

So basically it's not a camera for you. Why repeat that 30+ times? Are you insecure about it?

Most m4/3 users I know, and by far the most in the m4/3 forum have more lenses than the kit-lens. But I am always willing to look at the statistics. Can you show them?

17 upvotes
HubertChen
By HubertChen (10 months ago)

Luminous Landscape is a website about professional Photography and Videography. Among the many cameras they use are the GH3, which is a M43 camera. It is also interesting to note, that the latest hottest professional Video Camera Black Magic which shoots CinemaDNG -- RAW footage for movies-- is having a MFT43 mount.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/camcorders/bmcc_first_impressions.shtml

Another huge benefit of MFT43 mount is, that you can use lens adapters and connect almost any lens from almost any lens system.

With current sensor performance, there is no significant performance difference between APS-C and MFT43.

Nowadays handling is the more deciding factor. A smaller camera that falls great into the hand and which has direct button control for every major function is always a winner, especially for people who shoot a lot.

There is also no doubt in the community, that excellent lenses are available for the MFT43 system.

16 upvotes
Dheorl
By Dheorl (10 months ago)

Most DSLR users also only have the kit lens. Some will have a nifty fifty of tele and even very few will have any sort of lens collection.

For me m4/3 is my main system (GH3) because for me it has the best ergonomics of any camera with an EVF (which I much prefer to an OVF), and hence fast AF with live view, and the image quality is perfectly up to scratch for my purposes.

3 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (10 months ago)

HubertChen - And... how exactly does it change the fact that E-M1 is too expensive?

Dheorl - According to Sigma - a percentage of DSLR users who buy 3rd party lenses is much higher than in mirrorless cameras.
So... yes - perhaps most of DSLR users buy only a kit lenses, but this percentage is even worse in mirrorless market.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (10 months ago)

So if you think it is overpriced name the current cameras that you feel are as well made, durable, as well sealed, have as large a viewfinder and a similar sized Raw buffer as the EM-1.

If you get this right it should be a very short list.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (10 months ago)

I can name you at least several cameras that offer all of this or even more, perhaps with exception of buffer size (not that it matters for 99.9% of people).
On top of that they offer larger sensor, and in many cases also much better choice of lenses and accessories.

0 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (10 months ago)

He has no list...

5 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (10 months ago)

Go on then Plastek I will start you off with all the cameras from Nikons range and buffer size does matter so no cheating... D4.

4 upvotes
Jim in Hudson
By Jim in Hudson (10 months ago)

The buffer size issue is ridiculous. No one is going to fill that up, especially when the camera/battery combo is only rated for 390 shots. THAT is far more important to 99% of photographers.

1 upvote
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (10 months ago)

So Jim have all the D4 owners made a huge mistake is buying a camera with such a large buffer?

2 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (10 months ago)

At full speed, it's barely 5 seconds worth of photos at 10fps.

If you shoot sports or just your kids, you will fill that buffer up. It's a "pro" feature, but one more casual users can most definitely use.

4 upvotes
inorogNL
By inorogNL (10 months ago)

and what lens do majority of DSLr users have???

0 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (10 months ago)

inorogNl normally the kit lens that cannot do the sensor justice.

0 upvotes
Jon Ragnarsson
By Jon Ragnarsson (10 months ago)

Well, I think 1D is too expensive, and too big. Why bother with all that bulk when I can buy 6D?

1 upvote
rrccad
By rrccad (10 months ago)

@bluevellet if you are shooting off 5 second 10fps bursts with an ancient card so it doesn't clear off at the same time for kid shots .. perhaps any camera isn't suitable for you, and a course would be.

0 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (10 months ago)

If I were shooting with an ancient card, it would not only be slow, it would also be limited in storage space. If you're ready to upgrade cameras, upgrade your memory cards too to get the best out of it.

I personally shoot more photos than I need in the moment, then discard the unwanted/redundant photos later.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
rrccad
By rrccad (10 months ago)

you missed the point .. that would be the only time you'd actually use the full buffer over 5 seconds.

have a 50+ shot buffer isn't necessary unless you are shooting with slow speed cards or the firmware is horribad that doesn't allow for card writing to happen in parallel to flush from the buffers.

1 upvote
Plastek
By Plastek (10 months ago)

Stu 5 - D4 is one of these special purpose cameras designed for few, very specific tasks, and so it is advertised. E-M1 is not.
If you can't see it - its your problem.

rrccad - honestly? I doubt I ever shot more than 1 second burst. It's better to know WHEN to shoot than how long one should hold the release.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Spunjji
By Spunjji (10 months ago)

rrccad, you're talking through your rear end... there isn't a card out there that will clear at a rate fast enough to save 5-9fps worth of 16MP RAW images without faltering.

Sod it, I'm having fun watching the anti M4/3 trolls turn on themselves by accident. *popcorn*

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (10 months ago)

No, even with the best cards, there's a buffer limit with the E-M1, at least with RAW files. It's a generous buffer, and I'm not complaining about it, but it's a limit nonetheless´. I'm used to smaller buffers and learn to live with the limitation.

Don't tell me I wouldn't reach it, you don't know my shooting style or what I actually shoot.

0 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (10 months ago)

No, even with the best cards, there's a buffer limit with the E-M1, at least with RAW files. It's a generous buffer, and I'm not complaining about it, but it's a limit nonetheless´. I'm used to smaller buffers and learn to live with the limitation.

Check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eS-BhRfR310

Don't tell me I wouldn't reach it, you don't know my shooting style or what I actually shoot.

1 upvote
kecajkerugo
By kecajkerugo (10 months ago)

just like for me DSLR will be always second....no...no NO camera for its size.

0 upvotes
Dheorl
By Dheorl (10 months ago)

@Plastec, yea, but the number of 3rd party lenses made for DSLR is much great so that's a hugely wonkey statistic.

0 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (10 months ago)

Plastek and that is the whole point the D4 is designed for the pro market who need a workhorse camera but those who don't need a high MP count. Before a few days ago though there was nothing that filled that gap in the pro market if you wanted a camera smaller than FF and that is where the EM-1 steps in. A workhorse like the D4 but with a smaller sensor. None of the other brands offer anything at the moment.

For my work I don't need a FF high MP camera. I need something smaller as all my work is location based. I don't want a camera that screams steal me as it is so large when I am working in the centre of London. I do need a workhorse though with a good lens range and good pro back up. I am also not the only pro like it either. There are already quite a few pro photographers out there who have never used Olympus before who have purchased a EM-5 and are either using it as their main camera or second camera.

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (10 months ago)

Part 2

Many of those have come from FF. None of use are having an issue in selling our work or being hired for work which gets published in magazines and newspapers around the world. The client is not interested in what we use just the end results and those they are pleased with. It's the photographer they have hired not the equipment. They know it is the photographer that makes the difference.

0 upvotes
Oly500Enew
By Oly500Enew (10 months ago)

Henry sure spends a lot of time on this post for someone who would never pay this much for a camera. Well it is a "PRO" camera. Same sensor, diff body.

0 upvotes
JEROME NOLAS
By JEROME NOLAS (10 months ago)

Yes, great camera, great lens. Costs more than D600+24-85mm combo....

3 upvotes
Thorgrem
By Thorgrem (10 months ago)

I can't find any Nikkor 24-85 f/2.8 lens.

3 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (10 months ago)

E-M1 doesn't suffer from oil all over the sensor, doesn't have lousy AF.

11 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (10 months ago)

Great, only that "lousy" AF is still better than what E-M1 offers. Not to mention image quality being MILES ahead of E-M1.
AND you get a lens on top of the body price for the same money as the E-M1.

Other than that - Nikon plans to release D610 with fixed "oil" issue, and than there's a Canon with 6D that got basically a night vision AF system and an image quality that's also MILES ahead of E-M1.

Not to mention the fact that both of these cameras offer ENORMOUS choice of native lenses comparing to m43. And the same with choice of accessories.
And they got a real flash systems instead of this joke in m43.

2 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (10 months ago)

Thorgrem I think they mean the Nikkor 24-85 f/3.5-4.5.

1 upvote
b0k3h
By b0k3h (10 months ago)

weather sealed mag body vs plastic ?

4 upvotes
fakuryu
By fakuryu (10 months ago)

@plastek

You just went full retard. Never go full retard.

2 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (10 months ago)

Wow... caring about lenses these days is going "retard"? ugh... what times do we live in....

b0k3h - FF sensor vs small one?

Comment edited 16 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Oly500Enew
By Oly500Enew (10 months ago)

How many lenses do you need Plastek? You can use ANY lens on m43. Choices are unlimited.

0 upvotes
Akkers2012
By Akkers2012 (10 months ago)

The 12-40 F2.8 lens preview is out on Ming Thein. Pretty impressive stuff!

10 upvotes
HubertChen
By HubertChen (10 months ago)

@ anyone, here is the link for your convenience:
http://blog.mingthein.com/tag/12-402-8/
(The lens and the review are both amazing)

Dear Akkers2012

Thanks so much for the Reference. I am always looking for great photography websites, and this one is really outstanding! Thanks so much.

Comment edited 36 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
martin velky
By martin velky (10 months ago)

Werbung

1 upvote
deleted-13120401
By deleted-13120401 (10 months ago)

I'm trying very hard to ignore the reports on how the stabilization works at up to two seconds. Also trying to tell myself I need to take two thousand more photos before I can buy a new camera...

6 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (10 months ago)

By the way things are going, we'll hit 1000 comments within a few days. The E-M5 announcement, preview and review didn't get nowhere near that amount of feedback.

I personally think the E-M1 is a nice step-up from the E-M5, but not as revolutionary as the E-M5 was so that amount of buzz around the E-M1 is a bit puzzling. Still, all that talk probably means Olympus hit a home run.

It would certainly explain why the trolls and fanboys of other cameras manufacturers are out in force.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 54 seconds after posting
17 upvotes
Rombo
By Rombo (10 months ago)

You are right except that we'll reach the 1000 a lot sooner...

1 upvote
bluevellet
By bluevellet (10 months ago)

Yes, you're probably right.

0 upvotes
olyflyer
By olyflyer (10 months ago)

The focus is OK in the first sequence with the slow riders but in the second I would be worried with the AF ability.

In the second sequence the aperture is severely stopped down, everything from the nose of the horse to infinity is in focus. What would make me worried is the fact that nothing in front of the horse is in focus, so the rider is always on the edge of DOF. I think if the camera was set to use larger aperture then the rider would have been out of focus.

I tried to download the second sequence images but it seems that only the first image is downloadable, so my conclusion might be wrong, but it is not likely that it is different in the other images in terms of the used aperture and the very deep DOF.

The AF tuning abilities are really impressive but who else other than a very few diehard Oly fans have the time and knowledge to tune properly? No, in my opinion the AF tuning should be done by the factory, not the user. I would not be happy to have to do that tuning at home.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (10 months ago)

"In the second sequence the aperture is severely stopped down, everything from the nose of the horse to infinity is in focus." - yea, I love tests like that.
Most of the Nikon 1 AF-C tests are similar - focus from 5 meters to infinity and guy tests tracking of a car 50 meters ahead.

1 upvote
olyflyer
By olyflyer (10 months ago)

Received a mail from Andy, explaining a few things and informing that the download issue and the lens differences is now fixed. I'll have a look later today once again.

1 upvote
olyflyer
By olyflyer (10 months ago)

Plastek, this is not about the Nikon 1, I have not seen those images and not interested in discussing that camera here. My comments were based on that single first image of the second sequence, and in that image, NOTHING seems to be in focus in front of the horse. That might be the way the camera starts, so that's fine, that is why I wanted to download the other images also.

2 upvotes
A Westlake
By A Westlake (10 months ago)

I've now replaced the second set of images with one which illustrates focus tracking much more clearly. Thanks for the feedback on this.

Comment edited 22 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Spunjji
By Spunjji (10 months ago)

Thanks for the quick response Andy. Those examples are much more useful!

1 upvote
Peter Heckert2
By Peter Heckert2 (10 months ago)

So it is proven it can focus on white horses with black belts.
Whats about black horses with black belts?
;-)

8 upvotes
maxola67
By maxola67 (10 months ago)

New thing and emotional perception of that prevails.
But look at price/value ratio more attentively.
What do you get?
I wouldn't believe that 4/3m system could provide the same IQ as APS-C one(other things being equal).
Sensor size does matter.
Just take any ILC with APS-C sensor and compare(personally I did that).
Yes, you need to compare with ILCs.

3 upvotes
Photog74
By Photog74 (10 months ago)

I don't expect the IQ to be _that_ much different. Last year, PB compared the then-flagship OM-D E-M5 to the Nikon D7000 (not a CSC but an APS-C dSLR) and found, to their surprise, that the difference in IQ was less than they had expected (they thought the D7000 still had the edge in terms of ergonomics but the only major IQ difference they found was that the D7000 raw files stood up better to pulling up the deepest shadows in a high-contrast shot). Here is the link: http://www.photographyblog.com/articles/head_to_head_review_olympus_om-d_e-m5_v_nikon_d7000/

I expect roughly the same from the E-M1 - i.e. that its lag behind APS-C in terms of IQ won't be significant enough to worry anyone. The impressive C-AF performance - with MFT lenses - will matter more. The Sony NEX-6 also has on-sensor PDAF but using focus priority in C-AF slows down the frame rate quite a bit so you might not get the shot you wanted. Based on the samples the E-M1 seems vastly superior.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
13 upvotes
Oleg Vinokurov
By Oleg Vinokurov (10 months ago)

If size and weight doesn't matter to you, then e-m1 might be not that good value, especially if you compare only IQ. But then, why even look at e-m1, when for example epm2 provides about same IQ at much lower price point?

2 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (10 months ago)

The pixel pitch is the same as the one of NEX-7. Do not forget that we have also about 24% smaller image all over. If you produce the same image size with smaller sensor, you will have a loss, here we have 24% less image surface to cover.

IQ is absolutely amazing, Sony sensor performs excellent and IQ difference on APS-C is not noticeable. On the other side, is the DOF factor, it is hard to get good bokeh with a 4/3 camera. Maybe it is a reason for Voigtlaender to make Noktons with 0.95 to get DOF ranges that look good. I have compared 4/3 to APSC, found not that the IQ was less good, but with any 2.8 lens, I had good DOF and bokeh on the NEX-7, while on the 16mpix 4/3, it was almost impossible to get any blur. For tourism, family, and travel, I prefer a 4/3 format, on those events you want all sharp on the picture anyway. Now, concerning this camera, it has good features, is a bit too big for a mirrorless, and is salty priced, not exactly the way to go if you expect massive sales.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Photog74
By Photog74 (10 months ago)

To be fair, Micro Four Thirds has the most small and fast primes - including autofocus primes - of all mirrorless systems. Tons of f/1.4, f/1.7, f/1.8 and f/2 lenses that tend to be very sharp wide open. It's easy to get subject/background separation via shallow depth of field with a 45mm f/1.8 lens and even easier with a 75mm f/1.8. Etc.

5 upvotes
blohum
By blohum (10 months ago)

"I had good DOF and bokeh on the NEX-7, while on the 16mpix 4/3, it was almost impossible to get any blur"

Sharmel, you and I both know that statement is utter nonsense... have you tried any of the fast primes??

6 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (10 months ago)

"The pixel pitch is the same as the one of NEX-7." - yea, only NEX7 offers higher resolution, so if you downscale images than you might be surprised (not to mention the fact that NEX7 is exceptionally poor for it's own generation of APS-C sensors).

1 upvote
JerryKraut
By JerryKraut (10 months ago)

Folks, may be I am getting old and may be some lenses (not the Long Toms I use a lot) have no manual focus ring anymore, but I never understood the fuss about AF. Who needs this feature, really? Press and sports photographers, OK, and blind people, who should not be taking pictures in the first place. All these people who send their lenses back and forth to have them serviced because of perceived front or back focus make me laugh. I remember an article in AP, I think it was, when Heather Angel said she only bought her first AF Nikon body, an F4, because of the superior metering and that she would not swap all her big glass for the new AF versions. I had a Dutchman ridicule me once for taking photos of a pack of timber wolves with an old manual telezoom lens. Pity I could not show him the best pictures I took that day. That would have shut him up.

8 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (10 months ago)

you are our hero.. now please go back to your old peoples home.

3 upvotes
calking
By calking (10 months ago)

Ignore Henry. Plenty of working pros today still use and advocate manual operation and focus. Pixel peepers and forum heads who have poor shooting technique will always need something to blame for their shortcomings -- in today's times it is "inferior" equipment.

5 upvotes
technotic
By technotic (10 months ago)

Blind people shouldn't be taking photos? That's a low statement indeed.

3 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (10 months ago)

Not only blind. Just enough you get some issues with eyesight. Unless you're a young kid - simple dioptre correction won't be enough for precise manual focusing.
Not to mention an issues with continuous tracking of moving objects.

3 upvotes
Spunjji
By Spunjji (10 months ago)

I'm pleased for you that you can focus so well manually, that's wonderful - what does that have to do with anyone else? My eyes are such that it is impossible for me to ever get an accurately focused image via manual focusing through anything other than luck. But I guess I just shouldn't be taking photographs.

1 upvote
CortoPA
By CortoPA (10 months ago)

Its almost as good a camera as a Pentax K-5 IIs

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
bcalkins
By bcalkins (10 months ago)

Too bad the Pentax K-5 doesn't take MFT/FT lenses, or it might be an option :)

4 upvotes
HubertChen
By HubertChen (10 months ago)

I am shooting the K-30, which in some sense is an updated K-5II. After playing with the Live-view I got hooked. Now I am using an LCD Viewfinder and shoot with Live-view most of the time. CDAF is more precise, workflow is way faster.

So to me this Olympus would be the way better camera, at least on paper. It as an electronic viewfinder which makes the camera half as obtrusive than using an LCD viewfinder and the resolution is double too.

Only question would be if the Camera Operating System on the Oly lets you work as smooth as the one on the Pentax?

So dear CortoPA, I would not dismiss this camera so easily :-)

1 upvote
Plastek
By Plastek (10 months ago)

bcalkins - too bad m43 doesn't offer as many lenses as Pentax does.

0 upvotes
Spunjji
By Spunjji (10 months ago)

Thanks for the trolling Plastek, but as a former Pentax owner I know from bitter experience that your statement is complete hogswash. M4/3 + 4/3 = >Pentax lens range. That's without getting into how using legacy MF Pentax lenses is easier on M4/3 than on Pentax's own cameras...

0 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (10 months ago)

Well, if we take all of the lenses that you can use through adaptors than sure - m4/3 wins with pretty much every system but NEX out there (as NEXes can adapt m4/3 lenses on top of everything m4/3 can).

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (10 months ago)

"(as NEXes can adapt m4/3 lenses on top of everything m4/3 can)"

With 1 mm of flange difference and purely electronic focusing and aperture on most m43 lenses, and their smaller image circle, I doubt it.

0 upvotes
showmeyourpics
By showmeyourpics (10 months ago)

I don't see how Olympus could catch up to Nikon and Canon in the larger sensors sector, but they keep doing a heck of a good job creating market differentiation with very portable and feature-rich, reasonably priced cameras supported by a strong array of good lenses. Like the FIAT 500, these cameras also look very cute. I come from military electronic engineering and quality management, and can split a technical hair in 16. I am also up to my neck in fine art photography to satisfy the right side of my brain. When I pick up a camera like this, I can't help being in awe of what they are able to pack into such a small body. I surely can mention some stuff that I would like and is not there, but the thought of the photographic possibilities that they offer is overwhelming. It makes me feel like dropping everything and run out to take the best pictures I can.

11 upvotes
photobeans
By photobeans (10 months ago)

They can if they decide to go full frame. Olympus knows how to make great bodies, lenses, and photography systems.They will be a great alternative to Nikon/Canon.

0 upvotes
bluevellet
By bluevellet (10 months ago)

FF would just be a diversion. A new, bigger, more expensive system with far fewer lenses, sucking up resources from m43, for a tiny fraction of the camera market.

Let Canon, Nikon, Sony and possibly Pentax (next year maybe) fight for it.

7 upvotes
tinternaut
By tinternaut (10 months ago)

@photobeans No chance of 35mm full frame from Olympus IMHO. If they're going to attempt a new digital mount, they will need to aim higher, and have a USP to go with it (think Leica S2 territory).

2 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (10 months ago)

"I don't see how Olympus could catch up to Nikon and Canon" - it won't. And it doesn't even want to. I think target for Oly is to milk fanboys (with cameras like this one) and gain ground in mirrorless systems.

1 upvote
DanielFjall
By DanielFjall (10 months ago)

This is a weather sealed brick with awesome image quality. Looks friggn' solid!

10 upvotes
Gesture
By Gesture (10 months ago)

Good job updating results.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 2140
45678