DPReview Gear of the Year Part 3: Olympus OM-D E-M1

David - first, I hope you feel good about selling a faulty unit to somebody else. Good job. Second, do you really believe that anyone will buy your post? Funny how out of all the reviews on the net, no one else ran into this same problem. Instead the EM-1 gets like 7 "Camera of the year" awards that I have seen. The EM-1 is an excellent camera. Not sure what it is that you were trying to accomplish with your post.

But his handle has "photographer" in it, I have to trust him.

David, seeing you buy NP-FW50 batteries, and al your zeiss/sony posts, you're not an Oly use at all, you're a SONY user!

In fact you list no gear at all and don't seem to take pictures either (or have I missed your galleries?).
If I HAVE missed them, my sincere apologies.

I've read about this SUPPOSED shutter shock "problem".

Neither my EM-1 nor EM-5 have it, I've seen no trustworthy _quantified_ articles on it, so it sounds like the problem of inept photographers, ot too trusting of its excellent IS to me.

Do you have any actual pictures taken by you, where you've taken reasonable care avoid camera movement that prove this claim?

The "shock issue", so called, is far less severe than MIRROR SHOCK on any DSLR I've ever had (about 5 cameras).

I DO have a few of my photos online:
http://photohounds.smugmug.com
(mostly non paid work there - NO shutter shock).

Don't understand, get Panasonic 25mm 1/1.4 Summilux, which starts sharp full open or when even more sharpness is required shoot at F1.7 and you get bookeh. And there is Oly 45mm F1.8, even for more bookeh.

What a pointless rent. First of no one is loosing any copyright by manufacturing overseas - that is a load of nonsense.

Second you know those folks who keep predicting the end of the world every couple of years - they are always wrong and so are you.

There is a place in the market for more the one thing and no single thing will satisfy everyone. It's always been that way and it will continue to be that way (end of the world or other cataclysmic events aside).

And no there will not be a shutterless 1000 fps camera that has a super focus and a super sensor and will blow away all other cameras in all categories and will be affordable to everyone - wake up - most DSLRs today can't even handle proper AF in the movie mode and barely go over 10fps with continuous AF - what have you been smoking?

And have you not noticed crowds of former P&S folks walking with DSLRs around their necks? You know why? Because not even the best phones can compare to a cheap DSLR and that's a fact.

Pointless RANT, not rent as written!

could be both, though.

Poor munro, you really seem to have problems with this product. ;-)
Let me try to help:
"It is almost as big as my Nikon 7100 and a lot more expensive."
If it is too large for you, take the E-M1 or a PEN.

"With the good f2.8 zoom it costs as much as a new Nikon D800 body"
Why not? The D800 has quite different features and is of no use without a lens. Get a comparable lens for it and you spend another 1000€, but beware of rain or dust and prepare for some "weight-lifting".

"OMD is nowhere near as flexible as the old R1"
Are you joking? Try to put a pancake lens on the R1...

"You can then spend another fortune..."
You can, but do not have to. Excellent Zuikos start from 250€.
Very good Sigmas like the 60mm/F2,8 from 160€.

M43 is simply the most versatile system out there regarding sizes, bodies and lenses: No other system offers a pocket-sized GM1 and a fully featured E-M1.

Finally, if you still wonder why so many people like it: Just ask your friend, why he's so happy with it. ;-)

I would agree that the E-M5 + kit lens is not hugely different from RX100. But as harold1968 says, the right lenses make a big difference.

If we're talking RX100 vs E-M5 + fast prime vs Fuji X + fast prime I find the Fuji and E-M5 to be much closer than the RX100 and the E-M5.

Lacking depth?? I guess you have never used the Olympus SHG lenses on an EM-1 Have You???

Actually only the 100D is the same size.
However this is a professional camera competing more with the 5D, and it's really tiny(see one in a shop).
The same size of the lenses for M4/3s is really the killer, especially telephoto

Sorry Yabokkie. You're sadly misinformed by the look of your last statement. As a "pro" of the film era and having used the best available throughout my career, Oly does a mighty fine job and has the sense to realize where the effort needs to be made. Size is important. Getting print quality images is important. Versatility is important. Durability is important. Olympus exceeds the spec and has since the film days. I give them high praise for raising the bar for what's to be expected from micro 4/3. The fact that they improve the product after seeing how successful the E-M5 has become makes sense. It's also a sign of their confidence that they can produce a small format camera that can be used by "pros". My only quandary is whether I want to sink money into a FF sensor Nikon to utilize my assortment of AI Nikkor wide angle lenses(pretty much the only reason I would want a FF sensor).

bec tilting screens are more discrete .. great for stealth waist level shooting .. all the rest almost equal

Although full articulation sounds good, in practice it kind of doubles the size of yhe cam when folded out and found it fiddly to use.

I use Canon DSLRs (as well as m43) but I share your view. It is a nice camera for a smaller camera, but the size is it's only real advantage, and anyone who says they would not LIKE DSLR benefits in that same size body - if physically possible - is kidding themselves.

It seems to me that the OMD cameras have been over-hyped, made flavor of the year, ad-nauseum. I prefer the lower echelon M43 models which seem more befitting the capacity of the quarter-frame M43 sensor and appropriate price point. The E-PL5, G6, GH3, etc. How can the expensive OMD cameras compete successfully with the Canikon mass-market buyers? Even now that APS-C Sony NEX cameras are being discontinued as a line?

The two lenses I use with the OMD are listed above. I primarily shood people/portraits (about 75% of the time) and remainder are landscapes and things. I always shoot raw, so settings don't mean mouch. To be fair, I rarely shoot above F16. Most of my shooting is from f1.4 - f8. For landscapes, the OMD is a reasonable camera. I took it recently on a trip to Mexico and it was an overall good experience. People shots, however, are typically a mixed bag. If the lighting is not ideal, there is the usual noise starting around ISO 640, underexposures (easly corrected, but still extra work), lack of dynamic range, which on the whole, give the photograph a bit of a point & shoot feel. Now, all of these "issues" can be mitigated with a good speedlight/lighting kit, but then again, carrying all that equipment counters what the OMD is about. Again, just my experience.

wansai, I am making this comparison, as I own an OMD-EM5, which as I pointed out in my opening post, is very similar to the OMD-EM1. The comparison is fair (in my view) as the D600 sells for $1.5K, and the OMD-EM1 sells for $1.4K. Price is always a top consideration whenever one is buying cameras or anything else. My point being, if a friend came to me for advice on cameras and he/she had $1.5K to spend on a body, my recomendation would be the D600.

Firstly the D600 has better absolute IQ.
Secondly however the IQ of the E-M1 is so close in most circumstances, it's quietness, portability and speed are clear advantages.
The lens size difference is massive.
It's also about technique as well look at Ming Thein to see what can be done with the OM-D.
Lastly its a bit silly to suggest that experienced photographers who use tons of different gear would over-hype something. Mostly the other way.
I say this as the a RX1R owner, which apart from the A7R, is the best thing below MF full stop.

I use both formats, as well as even smaller sensors. But if you do not see how shallow focus can be used to isolate subjects in often cluttered situations, particularly in street photography, it is not the "fanboys" of whom you speak who have the lack of photographic knowledge. I have spent a lot of money on my m43 system, including the EM-1, and bought the 75 mm f1.8 just yesterday but I still find it funny how the true zealots have to trash every camera and sensor that is (a) bigger and (b) smaller. Lucky all m43 cameras are not blue, or blue would be a vital prerequisite to photography. Still, I guess as long as "good enough is good enough" many will be fine. I really do wonder about this "short man in a bar" syndrome I see exhibited far too much here. Just accept that it is what it is, without the silly "death of DSLR" nonsense.

yabokkie: Are you from the mirror universe? Because everything you just wrote is exactly the opposite of reality.

SalmanH, the ABILITY to have shallow depth of field is not the same as making it compulsory. I believe most cameras that allow it still stop down to f22. This appears to be something the m43 devotees have a problem understanding. Street photography is rarely my cup of tea either, but you can substitute sports photography or much other action photography.

of course it SHOULD blow away the 5D due to its old age...
And although I don't doubt EM1 is a very nice camera, IMHO the 'bang for the buck' ratio is really wanting compared to e.g. mid level APS-C DSLRs.

Quality on par with Canon? Definitely not on par with a current FF Canon with quality glass...

Even if he's talking about the original 5D, the two cameras score similarly on DxOMark, but 5D sensor still has close to 1 EV high ISO advantage. But the idea that IQ "blows aways" the 5D is a reach at best owing to better DOF control of the FF sensor.

I've owned the 5D II and an EPL-5. People reading the above comments about image quality and changing systems expecting modern FF IQ might be disappointed. Even as crop sensors improve, so too do FF sensors. Besides the laws of physics cannot change. Professional looking images will often be easier to achieve with a FF camera. That's just how it is. And m43 has some good lenses, but distinct weakness in UWA and telephoto zooms. Plus the high grade EF mount lenses simply do not have any equivalents in m43 - 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8 and f/4 L IS, 50 f/1.2, 135 f/2 L, 300 f/4 L IS, etc. And from an investment standpoint, the Canikon pro-grade lenses are gold, retaining their value as well as on the market.

"Even if he's talking about the original 5D, the two cameras score similarly on DxOMark, but 5D sensor still has close to 1 EV high ISO advantage."

He writes about studio use, meaning low ISO. And at low ISO, E-M1 blows out of the water not just 5D, but even 5D Mark III.
In JPEG, E-M1 bests 5D even at high ISOs (not to mention that 5D does not even have high ISOs, only up to 3200, while E-M1 has up to 25600 and 12800 is still useable).

> at low ISO, E-M1 blows out of the water not just 5D, but even 5D Mark III.

Lol. Just look at the DPR Studio Scene RAWs. Not only does the EM-1 NOT "blow the 5D III out of the water", it doesn't even best the 100D, or 70D. The D7100 forget it.

Not sure how you think the EM-1 blows the 5D III away when it doesn't even compete with the D7100.

Any new DPR member can make all kinds of claims about pro experience, but without a gallery, the link to a website, something, it's frankly just talk.

So what can we do? Look at DPR Studio RAWs.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m1/16

I don't see any "blowing out of the water" happening even with the EM-1 vs the APS-C cameras. How you guys think the EM1 is competing with a FFs for IQ is beyond me. It's a bit smaller I'll give you that.

Both systems got its uses .... there is a market and demand for both m43 and FF .. so move on from this silly sensor size .. discussion
take the one that suits your need .. no one system completely blows the other out of water..

Photography isn't about blowing away systems. It's rather about making use of the gear you have for the sake of photography. And when it comes to comparing image quality of the Olympus to a full frame camera?Please don't, because there is more to it than overcooked jpegs with sharp edges.

It beats the 5D? A years-old camera you can buy used for about $300? Where is the brag? Also, your 5D wasn't outdated for years after it appeared, it was a benchmark. The same won't be said for the current m4/3rds cameras.

INTIMIDATING OTHERS is the key,
a small toy you can't do nothing than being intimidated by other BIG GUY

Bluevellet, If you are doing any kind of photography that has you reacting fast, it's nice to have two bodies with the same controls. When I switch between my GH2 and GH3 it can be a little confusing when I need to make quick changes because of the different layout.

$2999.00 for a D800 (body) VS $1399.00 for an EM-1 (body). You must be doing "new math".

A low cost 24-85 on a FF gives anyway better IQ and subject isolation than a "pro zoom" on m43. Just read DxO.

Well then PerL, you should go get yourself a D800 and a cheap ass zoom to carry around everywhere. Sounds like a great deal and you'll even have the added bonus of looking like a total geek!

Ever heard of the f8 and be there" rule? If you could compose in three dimensions and integrate subject with background, you would not need or want "subject isolation". Shallow DoF is NOT an advantage, it is an optical limitation, that you must either cleverly overcome, or exploit for special effect. Of course, if you only take pictures of your cat in indifferent surroundings, you may need shallow DoF; you see, cats are always gorgeous, but sometimes the surroundings and the framing is sooo hideous, that even the beauty of the cat cannot hide the fact.

You only see a very crude representation of exposure compensation, it is not based on RAW. The DR of the sensor is much better than the DR of EVF.
The "advantages" are mainly if you often have problems with exposing right. Otherwise it is better to have a true view of the subject. IMO.
Focus peaking and auto zoom with MF lenses - if you got time for that you have time for careful manual focus with the OVF or LCD.

"You only see a very crude representation of exposure compensation, it is not based on RAW. The DR of the sensor is much better than the DR of EVF."
"Very crude"? Usually it's more like, see picture, press button, get picture. There may be edge cases where things work worse, but those are mostly a concern in forum discussions.
"Focus peaking and auto zoom with MF lenses - if you got time for that you have time for careful manual focus with the OVF or LCD."
So if you have time to do it the fast way, you also have time to do it the slow way? That makes as much sense as saying that if you have time for the fastest AF on the market, you also have time for the slowest.

I'm finding my shooting in low light events easier on my EM1 than my 5D3. Not sure which lenses you are using, but the focusing on the EM1 has been instant and accurate. The IBIS with the primes give me a more consistent keeper rate.

I'd be curious to know which lens you are using? I'm typically using the 12 2, 25 1.4, and 75 1.8 for indoor low light event shooting.

I had a Canon 5D Mark III and sold it after shooting this camera. I now shoot weddings with the Olympus OM-D, and it's definitely as good if not better than my Canon was- speed, low light, and all. But I carry around a bag half the size now. The only disadvantage is I can't show off my big Canon lenses anymore , my work has to stand in it's own merit :)

@John, I am using the new 24-70 Pro. And the 45 - 200 Lumix. I will probably get the f2.8 telephoto when it comes out, and hope that makes the difference

@Stu, there are people who say everything, but overhyping the EM-1 is buillshit in my opinion and helps no one, least of all people who actually need the shot.

Anyone wanting to try this system and the EM1 would be well advised to rent or borrow first, and try it in ALL the shooting situations they are likely to encounter. The physics of a smaller lens does create limitations and it is wise to be wary of fanboy claims otherwise. Those of us who carry around heavy DSLRs for 12 hour shooting days do not do it for fun. We do it because the lighter systems do not do what we need.

"No doubt it's great for the 100 people in the world that have the old full 4/3 lenses [...]"

Have you seen the demo sample of the 2.8/40-150mm lens?

Bright lenses would be always relatively large. And for them you need large cameras.

P.S. Even more so for the Sony A7 which doesn't have much native options and adapted A-mount lenses aren't particularly small.

though there are things that can be improved there is no doubt E-M1 is a usable camera at least better operation than APS-C NEX and entry-level SLRs.

actually low light performance has nothing to do with the sensor size. it all depends on aperture size that there should be no problem 4/3" sensor cameras with f/1.4 zooms beat 35mm full-frames with f/2.8 ones.

Yeah, exactly. You can get exact equivalence between DOF and noise performance at the same time by using a brighter f-number. :) That's what I love about MFT...you don't have to compromise image quality at all.

It's only very slightly larger than the E-M5 with the landscape grip attached, which is how most people use the E-M5. Recognising that, Oly used the real estate for a much more ergonomic set of buttons. I hope the E-M6 suits you better.

you must have some confusion Dougbm .. DPReview is without any doubt a camera gear review site ..

I am referring to the review photography not the challenges.
I would expect a camera review site to have very good quality photography eg Steve Huff's site. I just don't find the review images ever inspire me the way Steve's do.

I agree, although the images here are for pixel peepers to download in RAW and inspect each of those 16 million pixels individually

There's an obvious emotional backlash against full frame cameras in the mirrorless community, and m43 in particular. The same mentality plays out in the Canikon vs Leica camp, the Subaru vs Ferrari camp, and the Timex vs Rolex camp.

A number of m43 users start threads entitled 'why you don't need full frame', 'why full frame is a waste for most people', and the eternal 'who needs full frame when you get results like this', including shallow depth of field portraits taken with long m43 lenses.

It's not about gear. It's about the owner's emotional justification for its purchase.

The funny thing is, you don't get regular 'who needs micro four thirds' threads in the full frame camera forums. The guy with the Ferrari has no need to justify why he didn't buy a Subaru.

Archiver ... I've sensed that too. I would love to save some money and weight by getting a smaller system, and I watch the APS-C and m4/3 systems hoping to see something worthwhile, but nothing yet comes close to full frame. Especially when you stick an appropriate lens on it. m4/3 lenses have to be 2 full stops faster to match performance of a lens on a FF camera. That makes the lenses bigger, and the overall system size and weights become similar.

I'll stick with my 5DIII. Better performance, better ergonomics, better results.

You know what they say about the guy who buys the Ferrari - he's probably trying to compensate for something. Your tired arguments sound like the same folks who said they would never go digital or that digital could never hold its own with film cameras. You do understand that some folks cannot afford 5D3s and its costly system or Ferraris. Sorry - but there is room for both m4/3 and FF.

@Archiver
MFT’s users will have it potentially harder with emotional justification for their purchase and you are right to expect some signs of that in the forums.
It is a generalization you can chose to make. It puts them in one bag that doesn’t exist, though. Most of them know why and what they do.
Half baked thoughts will be popular with the crowd, and they are the easy way (to another kind of satisfaction).
And when it comes to funny, if you give me a choice (and I couldn’t sell) I take that Subaru. It is a much better car.

Complete rubbish marike6. If you need to heavily crop a shot to make it work you have not taken the photograph correctly in the first place.

Plus if you do need to crop a 36mp photo heavily or print it large you do need to use a tripod to a higher shutter speed because any shake will notice more.

With a bit of experience you will find out that sometimes things don't always sit nicely in front of your lens waiting for you to compose the shot nicely. Sometimes the action happens too far away. 36Mp or more can help make or save a great shot. But for most of my photographs, 16Mp is more than good enough. Eventually sensors will have many more pixels than today. 4/3 will be no different. It does not make sense to refuse a 50Mp sensor. You might need a bigger disk though.

The ability to crop a shot is a feature. It means you can eliminate carrying one more long lens. This reduces weight and load.

I thought weight was the bete noir of the micro 4/3 zealots who need to buttonhole every passerby to tell them that DSLRs are dead and micro 4/3 is as good as 135 format. Instead, they deem such opportunity for weight reduction a bad thing.

Every aspect of every other camera is bad to these micro 4/3 zealots. The Nikon 1 can never be as good because it is smaller. The line stops at micro 4/3, however, as the laws of physics are at that point suspended because micro 4/3 is automatically better than any larger format.

> Every aspect of every other camera is bad to these micro 4/3 zealots.

There is an interesting dynamic with extreme fans of that format. For them, ALL cameras should be as small as possible, that is unless really nice cameras like the EM-1 or GH3 get released.

Shallow DOF, who needs it? Unless you mention the 1" sensor cameras. Then the argument becomes, "the Nikon 1 and Sony RX cameras have far too deep DOF". Yuck.

IQ? For fans, if DxOMark scores a m43 camera higher than a older APS-C or Canon DSLR, that means you need a FF to get better IQ, and even then, FF is not that much better. Besides, everybody knows that FF cameras are too heavy for most mortals. :-)

Lenses are pricey, software corrected and easier to design. But for fans, m43 lenses are as good or better than the best pro-grade, optically corrected FF lenses. And so on.

Goal posts often get moved about. But it's all good. I keep my hacked GH2 because it's a good video camera, at least resolution wise.

@Archiver,you have it backwards. Micro 4/3 users are generally quite happy with their gear (that's why they bought it and keep using it). The actual backlash comes from bizarrely insecure people who seem compelled to boast about the size of their (possibly imaginary) sensors. What these people tend to have in common is a reliance on equations, generally gleaned from other forums, and "the laws of physics," little of which has much to do with the experience of shooting. Then there are the ones who like to explain that micro 4/3 isn't the same as full-frame, which is hardly news. So when you see a flinty article on the topic, it's a reaction to being poked at by people who are more invested in sensor size than actual photography.