One more chance for Oly and m4/3 . . .

All --

i have been a m4/3 shooter from day one . . . well, day 365: i bought a G1 w/14-45 in 2010. And, please, "no" not a troll here.

I have been deeply frustrated by how m4/3 sensor progress has essentially stalled since 2012's EM5 (which i have still shoot) in terms of DR / high ISO and color depth. Essentially for us raw file shooters very little has happened since the 16mp sensors came on the scene.
Gotta disagree here. DR improved dramatically from Panasonic's G3 to G6, even further with GX7 and subsequent GX models. All were 16MP. I had both G3 and GX7, and the latter is leagues ahead in terms of shadow pushability.
This is at a time when the rest of the market -- hah! finally including Canon -- has moved on.

But i've just been going over a friend's d5500 raw files. They are lovely and the ability to raise the shadows is just, ummm, stunning.
Nikon and Sony ar doing well here. But, I gotta ask, what kind of images are you making where MFT DR is a problem, and can this be overcome with proper technique? When shooting contrasty scenes without moving subjects (landscapes, architecture, etc.), I shoot a handheld bracket and merge to HDR in LR. This gives me more DR than a single capture from even an a7RII or Pentax 645Z.
The d5500 has a crappy mirror-box finder but otherwise is a fully functional camera (well, without my beloved CLS ability but the m4/3 systems lack that too). It even weighs -- with 16-80 -- within a bit of a EM-1 and 12-40 too.

Look, i love the m4/3 lens selection and i really like having the ability to have a very "light" kit (in my case, PL7 and 12-32) but the EM-1 mk ii had better have an outstanding sensor upgrade or i am going to have a hard time not divesting myself of that end of my m4/3 kit.

Is anyone else having second thoughts.
Zero.
-- gary ray
Semi-professional in early 1970s; just a putzer since then. interests: historical sites, virginia, motorcycle racing. A nikon user more by habit than choice; still, nikon seems to work well for me.
 
[No message]
 
It is really a lot simpler than that some people have different expectations and definitions of what good image quality means, some do not care about resolution, or noise or DR or anything much else. Using the comical look my camera took a photo it must be amazing approach aided and abetted by a number of fellow fanboys who will tell them how good they are regardless

It is this mindest that results in people being praised here for noisy, soft action and nature shots that would be ignored in other forums. Way too much oif the old pat on the back posts going on. Then if any one mentions that the images are soft/noisy/mushy whatever there are a bunch of posts from folk like you whining about it.
What an INCREDIBLY patronizing post this is.

Guess what....go over to the Sony FF forum. Look at most of the images posted. There are a ton of really lousy, but very high resolution, shots over there.

Bad photography is going to be bad, whether it's taken with a smartphone or a $10k system. A good photograph is going to be good whether it's taken with a brownie or a medium format Hassleblad.
You're missing the point.

Arguments like his are not about the photography; they're about the equipment.

Who cares about the pictures, as long as you can make someone feel badly about the equipment that they used to take the pictures? ;-)

(There's a reason that he's on my ignore list ...)
 
(Just about as stupid as claiming that m43 sensors are just as good as APS-C sensors, or APS-C sensors are just as good as 35mm sensors.)

I tell you what, just go argue with actual data instead: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...1&x=0.33959607189179175&y=0.22068487625234437
Even better, go compare GX8 to latest Nikons:

https://goo.gl/yTqiWl
Right! ISO adjusted for sensor size, it's exactly what you'd expect to see!


That Nikon 810 is an amazing machine; while the noise is similar, the text is far more legible due to the higher resolution.
 
IMHO, if one has to lift shadows by 5 stops for any reason, one has badly exposed the image in the first place.
5 stops is extreme, but poor M43 DR can be an issue without taking things that far.

Needing to lift shadows doesn't necessarily mean that the image was incorrectly exposed. In my opinion the correct exposure with a digital sensor is one where the highlights aren’t burned out, even if that means that other parts of the image are underexposed.

For example, if it keeps the sky from losing its detail, underexposing the foreground and ending up with a very dark building or landscape can be the correct exposure for the scene.
I would respectfully suggest that a better strategy for making a pig's ear out of the pig's backside would be to block up the shadows in any such image, if it were considered to be worth even that minimal amount of effort ...
When shooting macro using flash to freeze movement, any background that's are too far away to be lit artificially will end up massively underexposed. In fact, correctly exposing the nice sharp subject can leave the background almost black.

On a sensor with superb DR that can often be lifted to a natural looking mottled green/brown of out of focus foliage. It's not a matter of fixing a "pig's ear" of an image, it's simply a way of improving the final image by making it look less obviously and unnaturally flashed. That just isn't possible to the same extent with an M43 camera.
 
You would never, ever, want to take any Sony A7 where I take my E-M1 (and previous 4/3cameras)
I use my cameras in any conditions and that includes my A7. It's still working perfectly :D
From what I've read on numerous forums, the Sony A7 cameras do not like rain and Sony will not warranty any camera that has a technical problem, if they find any evidence of moisture on any part of the camera. Here are just a few:

- http://www.sonyalphaforum.com/topic/4642-humidity-caused-corrosion-on-a7s-i-ii/

- http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1339830

and best of all:

- http://petapixel.com/2016/08/20/guy-says-sony-scammed-shares-customer-service-horror-story/ or

You'd be happy to carry your A7 in these conditions (over four hours of constant rain and slipping around in mud)?

cruise-mar-2016-14.jpg


--
Thoughts, Musings, Ideas and Images from South Gippsland
http://australianimage.com.au/wordpress/
 
Last edited:
But Sam brought up bad/noisey/soft images...on more than one occasion.

Bill
 
I am very interested in the new Canon EOS M5 which is being officially announced later today. It looks like Canon's first serious foray into the mirrorless world.
 
It is really a lot simpler than that some people have different expectations and definitions of what good image quality means, some do not care about resolution, or noise or DR or anything much else. Using the comical look my camera took a photo it must be amazing approach aided and abetted by a number of fellow fanboys who will tell them how good they are regardless

It is this mindest that results in people being praised here for noisy, soft action and nature shots that would be ignored in other forums. Way too much oif the old pat on the back posts going on. Then if any one mentions that the images are soft/noisy/mushy whatever there are a bunch of posts from folk like you whining about it.
What an INCREDIBLY patronizing post this is.

Guess what....go over to the Sony FF forum. Look at most of the images posted. There are a ton of really lousy, but very high resolution, shots over there.

Bad photography is going to be bad, whether it's taken with a smartphone or a $10k system. A good photograph is going to be good whether it's taken with a brownie or a medium format Hassleblad.
You're missing the point.

Arguments like his are not about the photography; they're about the equipment.

Who cares about the pictures, as long as you can make someone feel badly about the equipment that they used to take the pictures? ;-)

(There's a reason that he's on my ignore list ...)
I have been using m43 gear since the GF1 with the GH2, GH3 , GH4 and GX8 my current bodies I also tried out the E-M1 great camera overall but I wanted better video. I post photos here in the odd bird thread and occasionally in the weekly photo threads.

Just because I see limitations in m43 that annoy my particular shooting does not mean that I do not see its strengths. In some areas notably video m43 is one of the very best options around at least on the Panasonic side. If as I mentioned above the E-M1 mk2 has a more useable high res mode and decent 4K combined with the amazing video stabilisation it would tick all my boxes.
 
You would never, ever, want to take any Sony A7 where I take my E-M1 (and previous 4/3cameras)
I use my cameras in any conditions and that includes my A7. It's still working perfectly :D
From what I've read on numerous forums, the Sony A7 cameras do not like rain and Sony will not warranty any camera that has a technical problem, if they find any evidence of moisture on any part of the camera. Here are just a few:

- http://www.sonyalphaforum.com/topic/4642-humidity-caused-corrosion-on-a7s-i-ii/

- http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1339830

and best of all:

- http://petapixel.com/2016/08/20/guy-says-sony-scammed-shares-customer-service-horror-story/ or

You'd be happy to carry your A7 in these conditions (over four hours of constant rain and slipping around in mud)?
 
I wouldn't be happy being there, at all. That being said, the A7 is a far more robust camera than people give it credit for. Three cases of failure do not a statistic make. I could counter with my own experience in the rain, as well as posts of photographers leaving theirs outside for timelapse in freezing weather, or shooting besides crashing waves, all without issues.

Also, good luck making Olympus cover water damage. Or any manufacturer, for that case.
These were just three random examples that popped up on a Google search front page, I've come across plenty more, but haven't saved any links. If your gear is sufficiently weatherproof, like my E-M1, I don't need water cover damage. And if the camera happened to disappear underwater, then I have insurance.

When I bought my E-1, the camera store had a stand at an exhibition and had set up a fountain with a small waterfall on it. All that week, the salespeople would hold the camera under the waterfall for several minutes, dry it off with a towel and then take shots. That convinced me to get the E-1.

As an additional example, many years ago, I had a camera bag fall into a river while out in the mountains. Inside that camera bag were a 50-200mm lens, two tele-extenders, and I think an 11-35mm lens. After I pulled them out of the water, emptied the water out of the camera bag, dried the lenses off with a towel and let them stand in the sun for final drying, all were in perfect condition and never failed me in the many years that I owned them.

A lot of people talk about how weatherproof their brands are, but usually cover them up at the first sign of a light drizzle. The only other brand that I know that are as weatherproof are the Canon pro cameras and lenses. I've stood side by side with users at football games and, other than myself, they are the only ones that don't cover their gear with raincoats.
 
Re: "Look in my gallery (link below in the footer) and try to figure out which image is taken with what type of camera..."

I looked. How is it that your gallery does not show lens focal length, f stop, shutter speed, or camera model, for any of the shots? Is that a choice on your part? Do you strip EXIF information? Or does the web site not deal with EXIF information, so that if you don't manually enter it it isn't shown? If the latter, then I understand.
 
I wouldn't be happy being there, at all. That being said, the A7 is a far more robust camera than people give it credit for. Three cases of failure do not a statistic make. I could counter with my own experience in the rain, as well as posts of photographers leaving theirs outside for timelapse in freezing weather, or shooting besides crashing waves, all without issues.

Also, good luck making Olympus cover water damage. Or any manufacturer, for that case.
These were just three random examples that popped up on a Google search front page, I've come across plenty more, but haven't saved any links. If your gear is sufficiently weatherproof, like my E-M1, I don't need water cover damage. And if the camera happened to disappear underwater, then I have insurance.

When I bought my E-1, the camera store had a stand at an exhibition and had set up a fountain with a small waterfall on it. All that week, the salespeople would hold the camera under the waterfall for several minutes, dry it off with a towel and then take shots. That convinced me to get the E-1.

As an additional example, many years ago, I had a camera bag fall into a river while out in the mountains. Inside that camera bag were a 50-200mm lens, two tele-extenders, and I think an 11-35mm lens. After I pulled them out of the water, emptied the water out of the camera bag, dried the lenses off with a towel and let them stand in the sun for final drying, all were in perfect condition and never failed me in the many years that I owned them.

A lot of people talk about how weatherproof their brands are, but usually cover them up at the first sign of a light drizzle. The only other brand that I know that are as weatherproof are the Canon pro cameras and lenses. I've stood side by side with users at football games and, other than myself, they are the only ones that don't cover their gear with raincoats.

--
You might recall the case of the EM1 user in a sailing boat on Sydney Harbour. Some light salt spray and his camera was unserviceable. He posted about the unhappy event on one of the forums. After letting it dry out it came good. He didn't take it to Olympus, so now he has salt inside his camera

As for Canon, the 7D Mk II is built as the Pro sports/wildlife body yet water still gets in

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58327886

This could have been user error with a door or cover not closed, but unlikely as the camera won't work with the card door or battery door open and the electrical ports are sealed with big chunky rubber plugs that stick out if not all the way in.

So far the only cameras I've let get really wet are my are my E-5 and 5D Mk3.

Thinking about the EM1, I reckon the weak point for water ingress is one not expected by the designers . . . loose strap lugs. Olympus Quality Control seems to have dropped over the last few years. It won't stop me taking my EM1mkII into the bush though

Peter
 
You might recall the case of the EM1 user in a sailing boat on Sydney Harbour. Some light salt spray and his camera was unserviceable. He posted about the unhappy event on one of the forums. After letting it dry out it came good. He didn't take it to Olympus, so now he has salt inside his camera
I'm not saying things can't happen and I don't think the latest cameras are quite as robust as the earlier 4/3 cameras (my E-1 spent hours in full salt spray on a boating trip in Southern Tasmania and was no worse for wear (I still have it and use it occasionally). One thing is important is that with weatherproof cameras, you use weatherproof lenses, without the sealing, especially at the mount, it's not weatherproof.
As for Canon, the 7D Mk II is built as the Pro sports/wildlife body yet water still gets in

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58327886

This could have been user error with a door or cover not closed, but unlikely as the camera won't work with the card door or battery door open and the electrical ports are sealed with big chunky rubber plugs that stick out if not all the way in.
I know the likes of the 1D Canons will survive torrential rain. That example of condensation is interesting, it's very difficult to pin a cause on that issue. It could just be a one off.
So far the only cameras I've let get really wet are my are my E-5 and 5D Mk3.

Thinking about the EM1, I reckon the weak point for water ingress is one not expected by the designers . . . loose strap lugs. Olympus Quality Control seems to have dropped over the last few years. It won't stop me taking my EM1mkII into the bush though
My E-1, E-3 E-5 have all been used in torrential rain or heavy rain for hours on end. I never had one qualm about doing this. And my lenses have seen just as much rain.

I think the E-M1 strap lugs do have a sealing washer, but if they come loose, then that's a moot point.
 
You might recall the case of the EM1 user in a sailing boat on Sydney Harbour. Some light salt spray and his camera was unserviceable. He posted about the unhappy event on one of the forums. After letting it dry out it came good. He didn't take it to Olympus, so now he has salt inside his camera
I'm not saying things can't happen and I don't think the latest cameras are quite as robust as the earlier 4/3 cameras (my E-1 spent hours in full salt spray on a boating trip in Southern Tasmania and was no worse for wear (I still have it and use it occasionally). One thing is important is that with weatherproof cameras, you use weatherproof lenses, without the sealing, especially at the mount, it's not weatherproof.
As for Canon, the 7D Mk II is built as the Pro sports/wildlife body yet water still gets in

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58327886

This could have been user error with a door or cover not closed, but unlikely as the camera won't work with the card door or battery door open and the electrical ports are sealed with big chunky rubber plugs that stick out if not all the way in.
I know the likes of the 1D Canons will survive torrential rain. That example of condensation is interesting, it's very difficult to pin a cause on that issue. It could just be a one off.
So far the only cameras I've let get really wet are my are my E-5 and 5D Mk3.

Thinking about the EM1, I reckon the weak point for water ingress is one not expected by the designers . . . loose strap lugs. Olympus Quality Control seems to have dropped over the last few years. It won't stop me taking my EM1mkII into the bush though
My E-1, E-3 E-5 have all been used in torrential rain or heavy rain for hours on end. I never had one qualm about doing this. And my lenses have seen just as much rain.

I think the E-M1 strap lugs do have a sealing washer, but if they come loose, then that's a moot point.
 
I agree that the E-M1 is not as robust as the E-5 and probably can't match it in terms of being "weather resistance", not waterproof.

Those flimsy rubber doors on the left side covering the ports do not give me great confidence.

I note that Olympus now calls it "reliable dustproof, splashproof and freezeproof contruction."
I think I saw a statement where Olympus was reported to have asked people not to show videos of their cameras being held under taps, shower heads and whatnot.

Mind you, their own advertising is pretty explicit:

8b63b9ad62804786bd33e37056fba799




57b0dc132db94fd7bdb5a115b9e1abea




4ddc808b89c5487bb994c38651f68da8




d5c9548dfbad4567aa0b4e7f94b5b4d9






--
Thoughts, Musings, Ideas and Images from South Gippsland
 

Attachments

  • 8b63b9ad62804786bd33e37056fba799.jpg
    8b63b9ad62804786bd33e37056fba799.jpg
    292.7 KB · Views: 0
  • 57b0dc132db94fd7bdb5a115b9e1abea.jpg
    57b0dc132db94fd7bdb5a115b9e1abea.jpg
    187.9 KB · Views: 0
  • 4ddc808b89c5487bb994c38651f68da8.jpg
    4ddc808b89c5487bb994c38651f68da8.jpg
    113.5 KB · Views: 0
  • d5c9548dfbad4567aa0b4e7f94b5b4d9.jpg
    d5c9548dfbad4567aa0b4e7f94b5b4d9.jpg
    161.7 KB · Views: 0
I am very interested in the new Canon EOS M5 which is being officially announced later today. It looks like Canon's first serious foray into the mirrorless world.
It looks like a nice body, but still only half serious without a real lens lineup.
 
All --

i have been a m4/3 shooter from day one . . . well, day 365: i bought a G1 w/14-45 in 2010. And, please, "no" not a troll here.

I have been deeply frustrated by how m4/3 sensor progress has essentially stalled since 2012's EM5 (which i have still shoot) in terms of DR / high ISO and color depth. Essentially for us raw file shooters very little has happened since the 16mp sensors came on the scene. This is at a time when the rest of the market -- hah! finally including Canon -- has moved on.

But i've just been going over a friend's d5500 raw files. They are lovely and the ability to raise the shadows is just, ummm, stunning. The d5500 has a crappy mirror-box finder but otherwise is a fully functional camera (well, without my beloved CLS ability but the m4/3 systems lack that too). It even weighs -- with 16-80 -- within a bit of a EM-1 and 12-40 too.

Look, i love the m4/3 lens selection and i really like having the ability to have a very "light" kit (in my case, PL7 and 12-32) but the EM-1 mk ii had better have an outstanding sensor upgrade or i am going to have a hard time not divesting myself of that end of my m4/3 kit.

Is anyone else having second thoughts.

-- gary ray
Semi-professional in early 1970s; just a putzer since then. interests: historical sites, virginia, motorcycle racing. A nikon user more by habit than choice; still, nikon seems to work well for me.
Hmm - already Panasonic has the new 20MP sensor and Olympus E-M1 MkII will also have new sensor, as well as FF & APS - beating high-res mode.

Sounds like another step up is upon us.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top