Shooting sports: PEN E-PM2 vs EM5ii/EM1

I used my E-PL5 for sports shooting for almost a year before getting my E-M1. I still had my E-5 during that year but left it at home unless it was raining. A number of times, it was clear that I should have brought the E-5 and 50-200 swd… but I forced myself to make the E-PL5 and the kit 40-150R work.

First thing: shooting distant objects with a longish lens (40-150R) is difficult when using the back LCD. It's one thing if you have your arms straight out… but if you tilt or tip the LCD (not possible of the E-M2) and have the camera overhead or at your waist, it's very difficult to keep things lined up while the subjects are moving about. An electronic eyepiece (EVF) can be added to any cameras that don't have them built in.

Secondly, that lens is not as responsive as a higher-spec (i.e. "more expensive") lens. It's bound to clog the AF pipeline a little.

Third, I wouldn't put much stock in the C-AF ability of the cheaper cameras. They are great value for what they are… but there's no way Oly can afford to put all of their tools in a low price-point camera.

Realizing all that, I basically went old school when I shot sports with the PL5. The one big advantage it had over the 5 frames per second E-5 was its 10 fps burst mode. I'd lock focus (say, on the goalie in hockey or the batter or baseman in baseball) with a half-press of the shutter and wait for the action to arrive — then rattle off 5 frames at the peak of action.

A small focus point is the first key in getting the AF where you want it.

Most sports need around 1/1000th of a second to freeze limb movement (depending on age and skill), so the F/5.6 of the 40-150 will require you to up the ISO to get that shutter speed. This is a real challenge indoors, or on cloudy days, or in amateur sportsfield light.

There are ways to make a low-budget camera work for you in sports — but hey, if you have the money and want to make things easier, the E-M1 certainly does that. I can't speak for the E-M5 or EM-5 MkII.