E-M1 - A camera for National Geographic Photogs and other explorers..

[oklaphotog]

wildlifr wrote:

But my point was that no pro is going to shoot with the current m4/3 long lenses. They're going to shoot with the pro quality 4/3 lenses which, from what I understand, are just as large as FF DSLR lenses right? That takes away the size/weight advantage because the difference in camera weights are relatively small. Regards to the C-AF, the few assessments that I've read seem to be luke warm, and this isn't surprising given it's a first generation. But given that this has been the huge Achilles heel with m4/3, I would think that if the C-AF was a great leap forward, reviewers would be shouting it from the mountaintops. Obviously, the C-AF testing will commence soon enough, but I would be shocked if it could compete with even the D5200 level of AF. And there is currently about 3 levels of C-AF above that performance level in current DSLRs. So I think expecting pros to give up their current systems to switch to the E-M1 is a huge stretch.

A 300/2.8 ZD is far smaller than a FF 600/4. The 50-200/2.8-3.5 is much smaller than a 100-400L, the 90-250/2.8 is smaller than a 200-400/4 L with more range to boot. If it tracks "good enough" all while becoming very portable in comparison, it could be a good option for some assignments. Pro's don't give up current systems, but add others along side when needed. Some Nat Geo shooters were using E-1's on some assignments, simply because the build quality was better than anything else and the lenses are nothing short of amazing.

 

[Mark Thornton]

benarden wrote:

Acrill wrote:

Big Ga wrote:

Mark Thornton wrote:

I think the importance of two card slots is diminished with the size of cards now available. A single 128GB card should cover quite a bit of shooting.

Mark Thornton

For people shooting mission critical assignments, dual card slots is about backup, not increasing storage space.

Wi-Fi functionality has backup covered.

WI-Fi not available in most interesting locations ; - still need reliable memory cards

The idea was backing up to another wifi enabled device elsewhere on your person. Tablets, phones or portable wifi equipped data stores. Tablets and phones may also have a mobile data connection (3/4G) if you want to push the backup even further (and can afford the charges).

Mark

 

[Mark Thornton]

marike6 wrote:

As I said above, DPR is reporting that AF speed with native Four Thirds lenses is extremely sluggish.

They have revised that section of their report. It does NOT say extremely sluggish.

 

[Mark Thornton]

TrapperJohn wrote:

capturing exotic animals where the animals are. That means getting to those locations with functional equipment.

Potentially an advantage for m4/3 when travelling by air --- your critical kit may pass as cabin luggage and not have to risk the hold.

 

[oklaphotog]

marike6 wrote:

Holy mackerel, $1800 for a 14-28 f/4 (f8 equivalent in FF DOF equivalent) lens? No wonder no National Geographic photographers and very few amateurs are shooting with Olympus Four Thirds. But at least you didn't link to the $1000 Panasonic 7-14 f/4, as an example of a high grade UWA.

Well, it is a better lens than a 14-24 Nikon and much better than a 16-35L. Not to mention that 99% of what you shoot with a lens like that requires as much DOF as possible, so why even throw the DOF argument in there?

The fisheyes, tilt-shift lenses, 3 focal lengths of macro lenses, wireless flash systems, etc

Just give a look to the system and third-party options, there is everything.

From what DPR is saying about E-M1 AF speed / accuracy with Four Thirds lenses, it seems unlikely that a large number of professionals or advanced amateurs are going to be all in with Four Thirds lenses on the E-M1.

They seem to be the only people saying this at this point. Other people are reporting otherwise. They are reporting that it is as good or better than the E-5, which is more than adequate on a speed level for wildlife, including BIF.

It's a pity that Olympus didn't step up the video capabilities on the E-M1 though, as the GH3 is still the premier m43 camera for multimedia production.

I don't see it that way. I think Oly caters more to someone who primarily cares about still photography. The reality is that the majority of serious still photographers rarely shoot video, and when they do it is for web use or basic TV viewing... And for that usage the EM1's video specs are more than adequate. If someone cares that much about video and wants to shoot with a poor handling camera like a DSLR, they can buy a GH3.. Or just buy a proper video camera with good handling, proper XLR inputs, Anton Bauer battery, built in optical filters etc...

Not to mention almost all serious photographers have at least two bodies in their bag. I almost always carry three bodies 1st) with either a 16-35 or 24-70 attached, 2nd) with a 70-200 attached, 3rd) a body in the bag as a backup in case one of the bodies in use dies. There is no reason you cannot have an EM-1 for primarily stills and as a backup for video work... And a GH3 (or a GH2 for that matter) for primarily video work and as a backup for still work, both working side by side if you shoot a good mix of still and video work.

 

[peevee1]

marike6 wrote:

Elix wrote:

marike6 wrote:

Landscapephoto99 wrote:

I can't speak for National Geographic since I don't work for them, but it only makes sense that more and more nature photographers would use the m43 system. Access to pro lenses, small, light, weatherproof (take a look at Ming Thien's shower test), excellent IQ?

The high grade UWA zooms?

Here.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/358162-REG/Olympus_261009_7_14mm_f_4_0_Zuiko_ED.html

Holy mackerel, $1800 for a 14-28 f/4 (f8 equivalent in FF DOF equivalent) lens?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with f/8 FF DoF for landscape/interior lens, you would probably stop it down further, to at least f/11 or f/16 (and would not be able to shoot without tripod at base ISO even in daylight).

Of course UWA on 4/3 had to be big and expensive - long DSLR flange distance plus 2x crop do that. Different story for m43. Although Pana 7-14 is still too expensive for what it is - but it is a common problem with m43 lenses.

 

[oklaphotog]

TrapperJohn wrote:

NatGeo photogs don't shoot their shots in their back yard. They go to (sigh) exotic locations and make a living capturing exotic animals where the animals are. That means getting to those locations with functional equipment. It means being able to get that equipment replaced should any of it be non functional upon arriving. That is a professional wildlife photographer's main concern: having fully functional equipment, where they need it, when they need it.

Both Canon and Nikon have a worldwide service and support organization geared to the needs of them, and PJ's, and anyone else who makes their living capturing shots outside of a studio. Olympus does not, and can't afford to set one up. Sony does not. Neither does Pentax.

This is almost exactly correct. Pro services mean everything. Where you are wrong, is the case with Olympus, which does have a professional services program. It is not as good as NPS or CPS though and will need to get better to compete on this level. Olympus' pro services program was fairly good when the E system first came out, they even had booths alongside NPS and CPS at several major sporting events. As the E system has dwindled, so has it's services program. It's been hinted that they may improve the services program with the release of the EM1.

You have to have users to have a services program. But you can't get top notch photogs shooting your system, unless you have a good services program... So it's a catch 22 situation.

 

[oklaphotog]

Mark Thornton wrote:

TrapperJohn wrote:

capturing exotic animals where the animals are. That means getting to those locations with functional equipment.

Potentially an advantage for m4/3 when travelling by air --- your critical kit may pass as cabin luggage and not have to risk the hold.

If you're worried about abuse, that is why Halliburton cases exist. Most pro's who fly regularly, use a Halliburton. These days I'd be more worried about theft by airport employees than abuse if you are using a Halliburton. If it's too big to fit in a Halliburton, a Pelican is the next best option.

 

[peevee1]

marike6 wrote:

peevee1 wrote:

marike6 wrote:

Landscapephoto99 wrote:

I can't speak for National Geographic since I don't work for them, but it only makes sense that more and more nature photographers would use the m43 system. Access to pro lenses, small, light, weatherproof (take a look at Ming Thien's shower test), excellent IQ?

What pro lenses? The 12-40 f/2.8?

And Pana 12-35/2.8. 4/3 14-35/2 if size suddenly not a big issue.

So it's your contention that the Panasonic 12-35 f/2.8 (a 24-70 f/5.6 lens in FF terms) is something that a National Geographic photographer would choose over a pro-grade FF standard zoom?

Over 24-70 on a crop camera? Easily. For FL reason, 24mm is not wide enough. Even 17mm of 17-55, especially on Canon, is not wide enough. And 17-55 are not even good at f/2.8. And when tele reach in needed, FF is a very difficult choice.

For low light event photography, 24-70/2.8 on FF is great. Except the weight, and the possibility to have not enough DoF for most non-flat scenes (and the subsequent need to shoot in Manual all the time).

Where are the super-telephotos up to 600 f/4 with matching teleconverters?

4/3 150/2, 90-250/2.8, 300/2.8.

As I said above, DPR is reporting that AF speed with native Four Thirds lenses is extremely sluggish.

S-AF is not sluggish. See videos for yourself. You invented that "extremely sluggish", nobody reported that about E-M1.

Sorry but that's not going to get it done out in the field when you are shooting for a publication like National Geographic where you travel to exotic locals and often have one, and only one shot to

capture your subjects.

I am not arguing for use of E-M1 for NG, but tasks of NG photogs, which are mostly landscapes and slow animal/people shots in good light, are mostly VERY easy compared to, say, indoor sports.

The Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8, again, 70-200 f/5.6 FF equivalent and no where near the same level of build quality as a Nikon or Canon 70-200 f/2.8 VR or L IS lens.

It is weather-sealed - what else do you need?

The 70-200 f/2.8 lenses take matching TCs, focus with lightning fast speed,

35-100 is not slower, probably even faster than 70-200 in S-AF.

have solid metal barrels, weather sealing,

Just as 35-100.

and tripod collars.

Of course they need collars (and tripids for them) for 1.5kg lenses. No need for 360g lens though. It is ADVANTAGE.

So the $1500 35-100 f/2.8 is an OK lens, it is not equivalent to a high grade 70-200 f/2.8 Canikon zoom.

Close enough.

The high grade UWA zooms?

Pana 7-14/4 is not bad. Well, there is also 4/3 Oly 7-14/4, and simpler 9-18 and 11-22.

14-28 f/8 DOF equivalent simply is not going to get it done in all kinds of lighting the way a pro-grade f/2.8 UWA zoom will.

For landscapes/interiors where UWAs are primarily used, you need all the DoF you can get. Even in low light - say, blurred corners of the room (because they simply do not fit into DoF) do not work.

But I am still not convinced that even E-M1 can actually track quickly and reliably in low light even at 6.5 fps (which is not enough to be competitive even if it works). Especially with 4/3 lenses. It is not a lens problem, it is sensor and processor and algorithm problem.

DPR's EM-1 preview talks about AF speed / accuracy with Four Thirds lenses.

The EM-1 could be a useful body for travel photography where small camera size is important, but it's unlikely to replace any of the FF gear that National Geographic photographers use.

Don't care about those few NG photogs, but if a photog are going to hike to get a picture, he better take E-M1 (or E-M5) +7-14/4+12-35+35-100+100-300 than the equivalent FLs in FF, because the latter kit will simply break his back, so he will get no pictures at all, better quality or not.

 

[Acrill]

Richie S wrote:

This is unlikely to end up in the hands of wildlife shooters, unless as a backup, scouting system. If you invest the time and effort they do into this stuff then simply put you want the best, and i mean, the best possible output you can reasonably manage.

Comments like this are an embarrassing display of ignorance. The least you can do is a bit of googling and link checking before you post.

Read this story about John Isaac, chief U.N. photographer and an excellent wildlife photographer.

He used an E-5 and Olympus 90-250mm 2.8, a lens that should be a great fit with the E-M1.

Olympus DSLRs have long been popular with serious wildlife photographers due in large part to the fantastic optical quality of their telephoto zoom lenses..

The crane and eagle photos are great:

http://www.adorama.com/alc/0013463/...ohn-Isaacs-close-encounters-of-the-avian-kind

 

[daddyo]

I am sick to death of hearing the equivalence nonsense thrown out every time a FF fan shows up on this forum.

I use my cameras professionally, and when I am shooting in a low light conference room and my E-M5 meter tells me that my exposure is f/2.8 @ 1/8 Sec at ISO 1600, does not magically change to f/5.6 if I reach in some auxiliary bag pull out a FF boat anchor and look through the viewfinder -- period.

Don't tell me otherwise.

Feel free to break out the charts and graphs -- I won't respond to nonsense.

God Bless,

Greg

www.imagismphotos.com

www.mccroskery.zenfolio.com

www.pbase.com/daddyo

 

[Nakiphoto]

Magnum photographers; Moises Saman and Peter van Agtmael use ther current EM-5 as their main cameras already. In other words; we already have so much choice in wonderfully competent cameras.

http://www.ideastap.com/ideasmag/the-knowledge/ideastap-meets-magnum-magazine

 

[semifast]

almost pointless, not pointless.

Some cameras have them. Why ? one reason is to store more pictures in an era when cards were small. Another reason is so camera can be called pro and some people will buy it.

The reason I say almost pointless is two slots doesn't offer backup protection from the most common reasons that backup is needed. Camera gets damaged or lost, or user error.

A separate backup device offers better protection for these issues. Can be done quite cheaply, less than $100, and if the camera is designed to do so could be fully automated.

As far as power, batteries aren't that expensive.

And what we are talking about is pretty limited in scope, photos that are so critical that ordinary cameras aren't good enough. Well if that's the case, something more than two slots is required.

 

[marike6]

daddyo wrote:

I am sick to death of hearing the equivalence nonsense thrown out every time a FF fan shows up on this forum. I use my cameras professionally, and when I am shooting in a low light conference room and my E-M5 meter tells me that my exposure is f/2.8 @ 1/8 Sec at ISO 1600, does not magically change to f/5.6 if I reach in some auxiliary bag pull out a FF boat anchor and look through the viewfinder -- period.

The topic of this post is how National Geographic photographers, who are almost exclusively shoot FF either Nikon or Canon gear, should adopt the EM-1. Which begs the obvious question "with what glass?" m43 is traditionally a consumer MILC system so it's not like there is a ton of high grade super telephotos floating around in the system. So we were just trying to figure out how an EM-1 could ever make in into the bags of elite National Geographic photographers as a replacement of their usual FF gear.

Sensitive much?

Nobody said anything about exposure, but DOF equivalence and shallow DOF as topics come up on this forum all the time.

 

[marike6]

peevee1 wrote:

marike6 wrote:

Elix wrote:

marike6 wrote:

Landscapephoto99 wrote:

I can't speak for National Geographic since I don't work for them, but it only makes sense that more and more nature photographers would use the m43 system. Access to pro lenses, small, light, weatherproof (take a look at Ming Thien's shower test), excellent IQ?

The high grade UWA zooms?

Here.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/358162-REG/Olympus_261009_7_14mm_f_4_0_Zuiko_ED.html

Holy mackerel, $1800 for a 14-28 f/4 (f8 equivalent in FF DOF equivalent) lens?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with f/8 FF DoF for landscape/interior lens, you would probably stop it down further, to at least f/11 or f/16 (and would not be able to shoot without tripod at base ISO even in daylight).

For landscape photography it's more than fine. f4 max aperture is not great for natural light, low-light interiors. The Olympus 12 f2 although not nearly as wide, could be useful in this situation.

Of course UWA on 4/3 had to be big and expensive - long DSLR flange distance plus 2x crop do that. Different story for m43. Although Pana 7-14 is still too expensive for what it is - but it is a common problem with m43 lenses.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have the Panasonic 7-14 f4. It's a very good lens. I just don't see it as a replacement for the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 G or Canon 16-35 f/2.8 L workhorse type of UWA.

 

[kongqueror]

[No message]

 

[Franka T.L.]

If I am a PRO looking for the right platform, I would see the limited Video capability of the E-M1 ( as vs the GH-3 ) a real significant letdown. Not to mention many of such highend need had very specific requirement that the M4/3 for now lacks. The well build body, relatively compact setup, lightweight, and weather proofing ... etc ... make a start, and I am sure within the context and for plenty of jobs it would suffice, but let's not over look the limitation also.

 

[Mark Thornton]

oklaphotog wrote:

Mark Thornton wrote:

TrapperJohn wrote:

capturing exotic animals where the animals are. That means getting to those locations with functional equipment.

Potentially an advantage for m4/3 when travelling by air --- your critical kit may pass as cabin luggage and not have to risk the hold.

If you're worried about abuse, that is why Halliburton cases exist. Most pro's who fly regularly, use a Halliburton. These days I'd be more worried about theft by airport employees than abuse if you are using a Halliburton. If it's too big to fit in a Halliburton, a Pelican is the next best option.

Actually theft was the risk I had in mind. An adequate case was assumed.

 

[Darrell500]

Big Ga wrote:

Mark Thornton wrote:

I think the importance of two card slots is diminished with the size of cards now available. A single 128GB card should cover quite a bit of shooting.

Mark Thornton

For people shooting mission critical assignments, dual card slots is about backup, not increasing storage space.

Just ask any pro wedding photographer, having a second card is critical. I have personally had a brand new high quality SD card fail on me during a wedding ceremony, talk about a sickening feeling. Luckily I carry two bodies and constantly switch between the two for different perspectives, that plus my second shooter saved the day and nobody was the wiser.

I used to think card failure was rare but I now know that it only takes once to ruin a photographers reputation.

 

[AndyMulhearn]

Nakiphoto wrote:

Magnum photographers; Moises Saman and Peter van Agtmael use ther current EM-5 as their main cameras already. In other words; we already have so much choice in wonderfully competent cameras.

http://www.ideastap.com/ideasmag/the-knowledge/ideastap-meets-magnum-magazine

Do they get to do much Wildlife Photography in Afghanistan then?