Field test: Shooting Roller Derby with the Olympus OM-D E-M5 II

(which is inflated and more like iso 3200 for other cameras)
This is wrong. You really should learn what you're talking about.

Why just Oly lenses?

Because it's loaned equipment, directly from the manufacturer. In exchange, DPR does these informecials. Olympus would be crazy to turn down that kind of free publicity or to allow a rival (Panasonic) to shine when Olympus should get all the limelight for this occasion.

Oly (and fuji) inflating ISO values is a fairly well known and consistently observed by many.

"In our tests we found that measured ISOs from the E-M10 were accurate, meaning ISO 100 indicated is equal to ISO 100 measured." - DPR

"In our testing, the E-M1's images were consistent with the ISO standard - ISO 100 = ISO 100." - DPR

Try again.

Well, dxomark clearly thinks otherwise:

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Olympus-OM-D-E-M5-Mark-II-versus-Olympus-OM-D-E-M1___1006_909

While iso is consistent with the standard at iso100, it's off a whole stop for the EM5-II and about 2/3 of a stop for the EM1 at higher sensitivities.

I honestly cannot come up with a lot of explanations for this behaviour short of cheating for the sake of better benchmark results...

First of all, forget about ISO 100. Base ISO is 200 with Oly cameras.

Most importantly you should read what DXO says about "underexposed RAWs":

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Pushed-ISO-Let-s-make-it-clear/RAW-ISO-measures-are-inferior-to-manufacturer-ISOs-is-this-a-problem

You don't even need to depend on others to test "ISO cheating", you can test it yourself. Take two cameras, use lenses with the same light transmission (or the very same lens if possible) and then take shots of the same scene with the two cameras. If exposed correctly, the exposure values should be (nearly) the same. One EV difference should be easy to spot after all.

No composition, no value added by photographer, just average mindless point and shoot. I see a lot of photos like this around, but I belive Dpreview can do better. Plus the technical quality looks like it's from APS-C DSLR with kit lens.

Feel free to check my photogallery: www.artofsport.cz

Had a look. Nah, I think Donald Chin does much better work.

Oh, what's that? I'm not supposed to troll the professional sports photogs when they act like jerks. :P

I had a look at your art of sport page. Great shots, but entirely useless for what the Roller Derby people are looking for. I suspect you know that though.

Yes, my (for example) Dakar photos are useless for roller derby people, great observation ;)

Damn. I forgot the inverse correlation between the calibre of some sports photogs on this site, and their ability to understand basic concepts.

No problem, apology accepted ;)

Gee all this time I've just looked at sample photos from a technical aspect. Now I see some actually expect the folks testing the equipment to achieve award winning photos!

But they are not good even from a technicalk aspect :D

I don't care about Martinka's photo gallery but I do think the roller derby pics are very point and shoot looking and they do a disservice to the EM5II. Olympus should have sent these guys to Hawaii, Vancouver, Maine, Alaska, or the next block over...

DPReview, please hire Martinka for shots. : )

I did reviewing for local photography magazine for two years, quit last year, it was too time consuming

I kinda agree with Martinka. I'm not an event/sports photographer so i doubt i could do better, but i'd say the Photos are nothing special. They cover the event and I don't think the equipment is the problem, there's just nothing that stands out. Maybe that OMG moment never came, maybe the photographer wasn't ready when it did come. No photo makes you wonder how it was taken. No photo surprises you with its creativity.

It is common to complain about sample photos at DPR. I know. They rarely satisfy.

Photos aside, the video was well produced and it gave a nice overview of the camera which, I think, is what really matters.

Tough crowd.

Don't worry Barney. I think what Martinka means, is that if you tilt the camera to about 30 degrees off horizontal you'll get a much better look, like he does. My daughter does this on instagram very successfully too. See http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3790254#forum-post-55188360 for examples.

For any sports photography, you just need sharp, well isolated from background, clean image of something interesting. Another option is pan the subject to make the image more dynamic.

Those pics are technically not satisfying. Compositions are confusing (not a full close up nor a full shot), not quite dynamic, and there are tons of distracting backgrounds around.

And most of those issues came from equipments - lack of reach, lack of background blur, lack of fast fps.

Amateurs always blame the equipment.

If only I had more than 10fps, I could have caught the moment. If only I had 1 or 2 extra stops of DoF control, I could have made this uneventful photo more interesting. If only I had more reach, I could have stayed at my spot and lazily took photos from there.

Problem is that those pics were taken with $4K amount of gear, not a $500 entry DSLR with kit lenses.

For that kind of event and $4K budget, I'd rather use D700 (now dirt cheap, still have great high ISO capability, 8fps, pro ergonomics) paired with f4 lenses (1 stop faster than oly lenses in equivalence)

And you'll end up with similarly noisy photos with such an ancient FF camera, not helped with the F4 limitations of your zooms for exposure.

With 12MP, you will also be limited in reach not be able to crop as much. If you try to compensate with longer lenses, be prepare to pay with money and extra weight to carry. No crop factor to help you here.

But you still get your extra stop of DoF control. Woo-hoo! Take that, m43!

Fortunately, it's 2015 and not 2008 so there are more choices around.

Yeah, we've already seen your earlier efforts in this thread, nerd2. We don't need another bait and switch from you so soon.

What happened to the need for "For any sports photography, you just need sharp, well isolated from background, clean image of something interesting." Did you decide that wasn't a goal worth following up on?

"A few people here seem to be under the impression that the goal behind shooting derby is to grab a handful of shots for your blog. That is incorrect. The photos are usually for the players so they can see the bout from a more relaxed viewpoint "

The goal behind every shooting could be whatever. The goal behind this field report was to show readers that 4000$ mirrorless gear is capable of shooting roller derby. Was the goal succesfully filled? I don't think so. Images are really bad, both from technical and aestethical aspect. And it's definitely not just camera's fault, but also photographer's.

bluevellet: 5axis stabilization for shooting roller derby like in the video? Tripod? Please, do not post about things you know nothing about.

D3/d700 still have vastly better high iso performance than any m43 to date. And Oh yeah, 5 axis ibis is crucial for action photos with 1/500sec shutter speeds or faster.

After all its your money, and its up to you which gear to invest.

Well, let's look at this claim.
D700 is about 1 stop better than an OM-D at ISO 3200-6400 (See DXO). You'd be shooting f4, and the OM-D at f2.8, so there goes any IQ advantage with respect to noise, etc. You do get 1 stop DOF advantage. Obviously if the M4/3 needs to go to 6400, then you're SOL.

So, with regard to IQ, there's almost no difference.

Ok, how about weight.
Well, D700 + 24-120f4 + 70-200f4 = ~2.55kg
And E-M5II + 12-35 + 35-100 = ~ 1.16kg
Quite a substantial difference there.

And finally cost
According to B&H $3542 for the Nikon kit, and $3599 for the M4/3s kit. However, for the Nikon kit you get a B+ second hand body. Oh yeah, D700 is 5FPS, unless you add a grip. That's another $300 and 300gm (plus batteries).

Yep. That looks like an awesome deal to me. :P

If you want to isolate roller derby with DOF, then for your "needs" I think you probably need to be around 200 f2. That's the lens you want. Start there and work backwards. :P

My father uses em1 with 2.8 lenses, and theres no way m43 body has only 1 stop disadvantage from d700. I even think the ancient 5d is still a much better performer at iso 3200 than em1.

Also portrait grip is a must for any serious shooting imo, which oly charges as much as nikon too.

No, no, martin, you were right. You gave a lens that nerd2 could actually use to "destroy" m43, but you busted his budget in the process. I think that's the point, many of his claims are flaky and unrealistic and that's why people punch holes in them.

"Many believe it's the A7s, but to avoid camera system wars, no official confirmation."

Well, as I've said in a couple of other comments, this video was mostly shot on a Sony A7S. Is that official enough?

DPR can come off as remarkably defensive and even smarmy, can't they? Especially for an organization that otherwise seems to embrace an appropriate journalistic detachment. You folks cast judgement for a living; one would think you'd have a slightly thicker skin.

I think you may be radically misinterpreting my last comment.

You'd like to think so. But Barney, this wasn't exactly your first comment in these pages, was it? What compels you to spend so much time in these forums self-consciously responding/reacting/defending/objecting? Maybe if you worried less about how people were reacting to your reviews, you could actually dedicate yourself to writing more reviews.

@Looleylaylow
Huh? You actually dislike DPR staff interacting with the readership in the comments?

Seems like you're baiting me, @ Looleylaylow.

You've never needed baiting, Barney. And I'm not trying to draw you into an argument. You do good work, and I take it seriously. It's harder to do that when you undermine it with smug comments in these forums, that's all.

lol you buy a D750 then strap a soft lens like the Nikkor 28-300on it.

Nice try...haha...

@nerd2: You can't calculate that way. There are very good kit offers, you would never ever pay that much.
And furthermore: No need to get all these lenses. Choose wisely and one lens will be enough in this case.

*facepalm*

Now add another lens to get to 24mm. And another lens to beat the 75mm, and another lens to beat the 45mm. Actually, you're shooting derby, so perhaps the 70-200 f2.8 would be a good choice and will cleanup the M4/3 primes. So now we're back at D750 + 24-70 + 70-200 (and a janky 28-300). Now we're up above 4kg of kit. That's not looking so fun anymore but at least you'll be able to say you can beat the M4/3s kit. :P

Of course, that's assuming you plan to use the camera for one job. Now add macro, wildlife, etc into the mix. That's ok, 150-600mm lenses are now common. What's another couple of kilos. :D

Then, leave it all behind and buy a superzoom for when you go travelling.

Ahhh, cameras. :D

28-300 is reasonably sharp (to resolve 16MP at least), and all of those pics are taken at high ISO where noise kills most of the sharpness anyway. Just download originals and see. None of those pics are pixel sharp.

Of course more sensible choice for indoor sports will be f4 combo (24-120VR + 70-200VR) or even third party f2.8 lenses but then the results will be totally in different league and not really comparable. What I am saying is this kind of shooting situation is the worst case scenario for m43, and is really not any better than pairing f5.6 superzoom to D750

First was the bait, and now comes the switch. :P

What I don't get is your motive for engaging in a sophomoric and reductivist campaign against m43.

What do you gain from repeatedly making a fool of yourself with oversimplified comparisons? What makes you think you know which gear this guy should be using better than he does?

Is it possible that a photographer might have good reasons - subjective or not - for using m43? Is it possible that you might have no idea what those reasons are?

Part of growing up is learning that other people know what works for them better than you do. Put down your ego and stop acting otherwise.

I thought I read that a 20-25% AF failure rate was normal for pro cameras/lenses. Either from a lens rentals article or wikipedia.
At the very least wiki says 'Autofocus accuracy within 1/3 of the depth of field (DOF) at the widest aperture of the lens is not uncommon in professional AF SLR cameras'
So modern AF is not 100% spot on 100% of the time.

Claiming we're dealing with a DoF of 2-3 meters is wildly overstated, unless you're talking about watching the images with a tiny output size.

@Intermittentoverexposure, most of these were shot with the f/2.8 zooms, in a small "arena" where the crowd is sitting right up against the edge of the track. One does get a shallower DoF and more subject-background separation when using the f/1.8 primes. (Though obviously not as shallow as fast primes on a full-frame sensor.)

Many of the portrait shots were done with the 45mm f/1.8 set between f/3.2 and f/5. Razor-thin DOF was clearly not the shooter's priority.

That the subjects' eyes are so sharp at shutter speeds of 1/4- and 1/8-sec is a testament to the effectiveness of the IBIS.

I was wondering the same thing, then I decided that the quality is probably too good to be achieved via the EM5 Mk2. Do you mind letting us know what 4k system was used to shoot the video?

Sony a7S + Atomos Shogun.

I'm surprised you find the Mark II better for C-AF, as it doesn't have the PDAF of the E-M1. I haven't used a Mark II, but the new firmware definitely improved my E-M1. The Mark II must be doing very well, indeed.

Yes, it surprised me too, Jim. One would think PDAF would give the E-M1 the edge. But it was only my first night trying out the C-AF improvements on the E-M1, and I was still getting 70% or higher success rate during the chaos of derby. (Plus I got even higher hit rates during a preliminary test using both cameras with automobile traffic.) So overall I feel that any difference in my results is still within the "margin of error" and I'll know more (and feel more certain) with continued usage.

But yes, I was impressed by the results of the CDAF-only E-M5 mark 2.

Thanks for the info James. I was hoping that the C-AF in the EM1 trounced the EM5-II so that I don't feel compelled to buy an EM5-II.

The only extensive discussion (or rather ongoing report) I know about is my own "Focusing explained" thread here on DPR. It started with the E-M5 and went on with the E-M1 later.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3243984

In short with AF-C (face detection disabled) there are four modes of operation on the E-M1:

1. Good light: PDAF with high fps EVF/screen (CDAF around the PDAF areas with tracking).
2. Medium light: PDAF with low fps EVF.
3. Medium to low light: CDAF with high fps EVF.
4. Low light: CDAF with low fps EVF (can be prohibited by using the "fast" EVF refresh rate setting).

The E-M5 also slows down EVF fps in order to catch more light for its CDAF once light levels turn too low, same as 3. and 4. on the list above. But with PDAF on the E-M1 it happens with higher light levels already.

So the stuttering (aka longer exposure per single EVF frame) is a way to fetch more light. Once the E-M1 switches to CDAF it usually stops stuttering until light levels drop even more.

Well, the implication of higher PDAF burst rate is that PDAF (algorithms) in general must have been improved (in speed). I was not using the E-M1 enough lately (got a D750 for improved AF-C), so I cannot really compare.

It isn't that PDAF was improved alone, it was the C-AF algorithms. The E-M1 used hybrid focusing, where it first use PDAF to get direction and proximity and then every frame finalized focus was done with CDAF. Now they dropped the CDAF from the focus and only use PDAF, that made it far faster.

It demonstrates its versatility. Not the ideal tool for the job but you can make it work. I own both DSLR and Mirrorless systems and use my mirrorless (Fuji XE2) 60-70% of the time but in this situation, my 5d3 with 70-200ii would be amazing. You can get better subject isolation with the thinner dof and much cleaner at iso 6400 although the fuji xtrans sensor is also very good.

I'm impressed with the frame rate and continuos focusing. But there really isn't much subject separation even in the f2.8 shots. In sports photography, you can have incredibly cluttered environments and narrowing the DOF is essential. So I'm surprised that the video review never mentioned that issue.

Sure TimT999. That can be done. In an event like roller derby, where the crowd is often closer to the skaters than you are, you could do that with, say a 200mm f2 or faster.

I'll let you get on with that.

Most derby photogs I've seen prefer the 70-200 f2.8, and if they want to isolate a skater use lighting, rather than trying to rely on DOF to knock out the background.

Well said, Martin.au. And you are correct, my "go to" derby lens is the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 (70-200 in full-frame equiv). Also it's a conscious choice on my part to shoot only with ambient light. I enjoy the naturalistic look, plus there's often another photographer already doing OCF so why duplicate that?