the em-1 in my hands

klauser

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
482
Reaction score
111
Location
US
Today I had the chance to play with the em-1 at a promotion event in a store and chat with Mr. Terada. I was mainly interested to try out how my ft lenses would focus on the em-1 and how the evf would feel to my eyes.

Clearly I would have felt more comfortable initially if the em-1 had an ovf but I don't think I will have a problem using it. This promotion took place in a not too brightly lit room without windows under fluorescent light and the evf actually was probably even better than the e-3 vf in allowing to compose and check already in the evf if half pressing the shutter gave correct focus.

7-14 and 11-22 mm: focusing did not seem different than with e-3, maybe a tad slower, but this would not be a problem in real use.

50/f2.0: focus feels faster on the e3 but experience shows that I better feather the shutter to make sure that focus is really exact. I have more confidence with the em-1 to get correct focus without feathering the shutter.

14-54 mk1: absolutely instantaneous focus (just as with the e-3).

50-200 mk1: just as with the e-3 so it seemed to me.

90-250 mm (not mine): fast focus similar to the 50-200 lens and good handling with battery grip. I had never held that lens, it really is big and heavy - I didn't have the impression that the lens was unduly unbalaced with the camera. I shot wide open at 250 mm at 1/40 sec and the image was tack sharp. Amazing IBIS!

Face detect and near eye detect now are also available with the ft lenses! I was not aware of this until I noticed that there were rectangles placed over the faces in the evf. I think that is a very valuable improvement for ft lens users.

Distortion, CA and sharpness are automatically corrected for all Oly ft and mft lenses. This also works with all third party ft and mft lenses, except for sharpness correction, because Oly does not know their exact specifications as Mr Terada explained. That panasonic ft 1.4/25mm is now tempting me a bit. These corrections are applied in camera to the jpegs and also when the raws are converted in Viewer.

The em1 feels very nice and substantial. The e3 still feels perfect to me but I am sure that I will get used to the smaller em1 very quickly.

I pre-ordered camera plus battery grip.

I hope some will find this post helpful.

K.
 
I appreciate your taking the time to report. I have an em-1 & 12-40 preordered and planning any decisions as to future with my 4/3 lenses including 50, 8, 12-60, 50-200 swd, 150, 14-35. I own a black em-5 +12-35 which I have used with success in all sorts of weather. I find AF with the native 4/3 lenses useless with the above lenses. I do find the buttons too cramped and fiddly to use reliable in poor and cold weather, so I am hoping the em-1 feels mode like a pro camera. . . we shall see. I welcome any comments you might have on overall handling compared to the E3/E5/E1 aa I own and use all of those bodies

If the 12-40 is as good as my 12-60/e5, I may start using it for my travel/animals kit, especially if the 40-150 proves as good as the 50-200. I am particularly interested in system performance with the 150 & 90-250 for animal use, so I really appreciate your comments,

Thnx again,

ed
 
Thanks very much for your detailed input. I'm also impressed you were able to meet Mr. Terada--did he spill any beans on new forthcoming gear? :-)

If the E-M1+grip can handle the 90-250, it should handle pretty much everything else.

Cheers,

Rick
 
I'm happy to hear about the AF with the 14-54 Mk1. My budget will force me to use that lens with the EM1 until I can afford the 12-40 m4/3. It's a stellar lens.
 
Thank you for your observations. I decided to bite the bullet and ordered the camera and the lens yesterday. I did not order the extra grip as I have not found it useful when using the E5 but based on your comments may just get it as well. Others have indicated it tends to balance out the camera better with the older larger lenses.

Your comments really came at good time to make me feel better about having ordered the new equipment. Thanks
 
Thanks for the info.

I've read that distortion is not corrected with four thirds lenses. Read it on four thirds user.com I think. Not sure if it is correct or not.

I hope to try out the camera tomorrow with my 90-250, very interested in performance in CAF.

Thanks for the info regarding near eye detect, I read it works with PDAF in the manual, but it didn't say if near eye detect was possible.

G
 
You have a large number of 4/3 lenses - I'm looking forward to hearing about battery life. Yeah, focus this, focus that, but how many shots with 4/3 glass is the E-M1 battery good for? That's one of the crucial pieces of information we don't know yet, and nobody even bothered to mention it in their reviews.
 
GBC wrote:

Thanks for the info.
I've read that distortion is not corrected with four thirds lenses. Read it on four thirds user.com I think. Not sure if it is correct or not.
I hope to try out the camera tomorrow with my 90-250, very interested in performance in CAF.

Thanks for the info regarding near eye detect, I read it works with PDAF in the manual, but it didn't say if near eye detect was possible.

G
It hadn't occurred to me they might add 4/3 lens distortion correction to µ4/3 cameras, given it doesn't occur in native 4/3 cameras. If they wanted to take a whack at the odd 12-60 distortion at 12mm, I wouldn't complain! µ4/3 lenses definitely need it, especially the wide angles, which have it by the barrelfull.

Cheers,

Rick
 
[No message]
 
Edward Rauschkolb wrote:
I welcome any comments you might have on overall handling compared to the E3/E5/E1 aa I own and use all of those bodies
handling is of course a very personal thing. For me the e-3 is perfect. I liked it immediately when I bought it and I like it even more after 6 years of using. The em1 clearly is smaller which is not such bad thing sometimes. The position of the front dial and back dial is very different to what I am used to but I am sure after a couple of hours with the em1 I will have no problem with it. My expectation is that the pure ergonomics of the e3 suit me better for shooting while the em1 will be an improvement in every other aspect, except for the vf where the evf has some clear advantages and the ovf has other.

k.
 
Skeeterbytes wrote:

I'm also impressed you were able to meet Mr. Terada--did he spill any beans on new forthcoming gear?
It is clear that Oly are very confident that the em1 is a worthy successor to the e5, and Mr. Terada really means it when he says that the em1 was altogether the better camera than the e7 which they had developed in parallel. I asked him about the focal lenght range of the pro uwa which they have in the pipeline and he just smiled and said he doesn't know yet, it will depend on what the market wants.

k.
 
When contrasting my E3 to my EM5. Granted, the EM5 exhibits sluggish AF with 4/3 glass, but the the other difference was the increased accuracy, especially with a very sharp lens like the PL25 or 35-100.

Whereas the E3 seemed to lock onto the wrong target on the first AF cycle, especially if the subject was a difficult one, the EM5, slow as it was, nailed AF right on the center point, first time, every time.

In that respect, the 35-100 actually AF'd quicker on the EM5 than the E3 for me - it often took three or four AF cycles for the E3 to get the center target (even with center target only set), while the EM5 got the center every time on the first try.

The EVF really isn't bad. I had my doubts too, but after a couple of weeks of use, I pretty much forgot the EM5 has an EVF.

Getting ready to place my order - body only. No package deal with the 12-40, so I'll pass on it and use my faithful 14-54 I instead. Glad to know it will AF decently.
 
John Pucel wrote:

I did not order the extra grip as I have not found it useful when using the E5 but based on your comments may just get it as well. Others have indicated it tends to balance out the camera better with the older larger lenses.
 
MatijaK wrote:

You have a large number of 4/3 lenses - I'm looking forward to hearing about battery life. Yeah, focus this, focus that, but how many shots with 4/3 glass is the E-M1 battery good for? That's one of the crucial pieces of information we don't know yet, and nobody even bothered to mention it in their reviews.
my e3 never gave me close to 600 or 700 shots which I had read was achievable. Even with a new battery I recently bought I think I never got more than 300. So I am not too worried about making a step backwards with em1.

k.
 
GBC wrote:

Thanks for the info.
I've read that distortion is not corrected with four thirds lenses. Read it on four thirds user.com I think. Not sure if it is correct or not.
I trust Mr Terada knows what he is talking about and I asked him this exact question. All Oly and third party ft and mft lenses are now distortion and aberration corrected in camera, but sharpness correction only works with Oly's ft and mft lenses.

I hope to try out the camera tomorrow with my 90-250, very interested in performance in CAF.
please share your impressions
Thanks for the info regarding near eye detect, I read it works with PDAF in the manual, but it didn't say if near eye detect was possible.
After I had noticed that face detect was enabled with my ft lenses I asked Mr Terada if near eye detect also works with ft lenses (not being familiar yet with mft I did not bother to figure out where to look for it in the menu). He said that face detect and near eye detect is not depended on cd focus, so yes it will work.
 
no, didn't try.

But Robin Wong, Pekka Pota and especially R. Wagner (pen and tell - blog) did try it with ft lenses and what they say sounds good.

Mr. Terada showed powerpoint slides with a comparison of the d7100 to the em1 and he emphasized how amazing caf now works, on the em1 that is :-) I think the images he showed were taken with the new 12-40 mft lens though.
 
TrapperJohn wrote:

Whereas the E3 seemed to lock onto the wrong target on the first AF cycle, especially if the subject was a difficult one, the EM5, slow as it was, nailed AF right on the center point, first time, every time.

In that respect, the 35-100 actually AF'd quicker on the EM5 than the E3 for me - it often took three or four AF cycles for the E3 to get the center target (even with center target only set), while the EM5 got the center every time on the first try.
Three or four cycles to obtain target eh? so what happens with things that are ... god forbid ... moving? or fleeting opportunities that might last only a split second and never again be repeated?

Sounds like the 35-100 on an E3 is a total recipe for disaster for a whole bunch of fairly common shooting scenarios!!

You know ... things like events, sports ... er ... things that the 35-100 SHOULD have been designed for.

Where in reality, its probably excellent at ... oh .... let me think .... telephoto landscapes. Where you are shooting at f8-11, and don't actually NEED a huge, hulking, oversized f2 monster of a lens! Nice.

So where were you in terms of imparting this information when there wasn't a better alternative, and people were complaining about AF issues?
 
Big Ga wrote:
TrapperJohn wrote:

In that respect, the 35-100 actually AF'd quicker on the EM5 than the E3 for me - it often took three or four AF cycles for the E3 to get the center target (even with center target only set), while the EM5 got the center every time on the first try.
So where were you in terms of imparting this information when there wasn't a better alternative, and people were complaining about AF issues?
Wasn't this the same guy who was proclaiming there is nothing wrong with olympus AF in that other thread? O.o
 
Stacey_K wrote:
Big Ga wrote:
TrapperJohn wrote:

In that respect, the 35-100 actually AF'd quicker on the EM5 than the E3 for me - it often took three or four AF cycles for the E3 to get the center target (even with center target only set), while the EM5 got the center every time on the first try.
So where were you in terms of imparting this information when there wasn't a better alternative, and people were complaining about AF issues?
Wasn't this the same guy who was proclaiming there is nothing wrong with olympus AF in that other thread? O.o

--
Stacey
So maybe he changed his mind O.o------ But I must say I must congratulate your threads because You are very consistent on your feelings about the Olympus products.....By the way in my wedding and event photography I'm still right on with my E-5 and 35-100 lens.. and I do shoot in SAF because usually most of my subjects are not intoxicated and aren't swaying back and forth...John
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the input. I was interested to hear about the 90-250 as that a large lens.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top