Returning Olympus EM1 Mark2

Ozonation · Jan 4, 2017

Before it came out, I was scouring the web for any reviews of the EM1Mk2 for shooting indoor sports. Finding almost none, I decided to get it given my local store has a generous return policy and they knew I would be testing it out.

Nice camera - great grip, etc. But I has hoping - probably unreasonably - that it could give me clean images at ISO 4000 to 5000. Not really, at least compared to my Nikon D3s. Yes, I know, that might be an unreasonable comparison, but I wanted to see if the latest m4/3 camera could replace my aging D3s and be "good enough".If so, then I would migrate all of action/sports photography to the Olympus. Nikon's just getting too expensive.

Typically settings would be wide open at f2.8, shooting 1/400 to 1/500, at ISO 4000+, for an indoor collegiate basketball game.

I also found that the tracking could not quite keep up; sorry perhaps it could, but I just could not find focus sometimes during peak action.

So, I guess it's going back - a little disappointing. But have the others found situations it excels in (other than being a small form factor)?

JesseC · Jan 4, 2017

Ozonation said:
Nice camera - great grip, etc. But I has hoping - probably unreasonably - that it could give me clean images at ISO 4000 to 5000. Not really, at least compared to my Nikon D3s. Yes, I know, that might be an unreasonable comparison, but I wanted to see if the latest m4/3 camera could replace my aging D3s and be "good enough".If so, then I would migrate all of action/sports photography to the Olympus. Nikon's just getting too expensive.

Nice clean images at iso 4000 to 5000 from a 4/3rds sensor? Not going to happen in the near future. Better to stay with your Nikon's for the time being.

Kelvin

http://fineartamerica.com/artists/kelvin+williamson

Jorginho · Jan 4, 2017

YEs, that is still a weak point for mFTs and I expect it to be that for years to come. The best APS-c might just get you there and it is years before we get that noise performance.

Where Em1.2 excels? Everything else I say.

1) I love it for landscapes and am amazed how well it does in truly wind weather. YEsterday with gusts of 66 km hour, blusteryshower accompanyning them (or causing htem) in a field with trees, tall grass etc and it just looked great. Even the tall grass in spite of it vigoursly waving in the wend look splendid. The water was oke. You can sharpen the 80 MP RAW up a lot, add colour tc Noise reduction not necessary. Then downsize the file to 50-60 MP and it looks so good. Great colours. Just lovely!

2) Any actionshootng, sports of BIF...you are there with the good lenses. But not indoors.

3) The ISo64 for single shots are seriously good, so clean. This is truely like a good APS-c sensor. Nothing to wish for.

4) AF is very good and I am happy, but it is not Panasonic GH4 good for S-AF. It is probably a bit better for C-AF though. Really good good good.

5) Video IQ is tremendously good, certainly with that IBIS. Better than GH4. Which is a huge step up for Oly.

So yes, indoorshooting is hampered by ISO and as I see also AF. The AF part will be covered by GH5 believe me. GH4 has very little problems with DFD C-AF indoors. But the IQ isn't there.

If you re not into HiRes mode I would take a good look at GH5.

Jorginho · Jan 4, 2017

Wilco318 said:
Member said:

Nice camera - great grip, etc. But I has hoping - probably unreasonably - that it could give me clean images at ISO 4000 to 5000. Not really, at least compared to my Nikon D3s. Yes, I know, that might be an unreasonable comparison, but I wanted to see if the latest m4/3 camera could replace my aging D3s and be "good enough".If so, then I would migrate all of action/sports photography to the Olympus. Nikon's just getting too expensive.

Click to expand...

Nice clean images at iso 4000 to 5000 from a 4/3rds sensor? Not going to happen in the near future. Better to stay with your Nikon's for the time being.

Kelvin
http://fineartamerica.com/artists/kelvin+williamson

I have shot several ISO6400 shots indoor and I liked them a whole lot. Depends on what you call clean. These were Jpg an looked pretty good. Almost like ISO3200 on my GH4 but I need to do head to head comparisons.

wolfie · Jan 4, 2017

Ozonation said:
Before it came out, I was scouring the web for any reviews of the EM1Mk2 for shooting indoor sports. Finding almost none, I decided to get it given my local store has a generous return policy and they knew I would be testing it out.

Nice camera - great grip, etc. But I has hoping - probably unreasonably - that it could give me clean images at ISO 4000 to 5000. Not really, at least compared to my Nikon D3s. Yes, I know, that might be an unreasonable comparison, but I wanted to see if the latest m4/3 camera could replace my aging D3s and be "good enough".If so, then I would migrate all of action/sports photography to the Olympus. Nikon's just getting too expensive.

Typically settings would be wide open at f2.8, shooting 1/400 to 1/500, at ISO 4000+, for an indoor collegiate basketball game.

Looks like you had pretty unrealistic expectations for high ISO if you really thought it would breathing down the neck of a 35mm sensor at 4000 ISO.

Ozonation said:
I also found that the tracking could not quite keep up; sorry perhaps it could, but I just could not find focus sometimes during peak action.

Interesting - seems like most owners on this forum are still working through the intricacies of the new MkII CAF system - presumably you've sussed it?

Ozonation said:
So, I guess it's going back - a little disappointing. But have the others found situations it excels in (other than being a small form factor)?

tinternaut · Jan 4, 2017

And some wouldn't even want to go above 800 - YMMV. So yeah, a case of expectations set to high.

horsth · Jan 5, 2017

"2) Any actionshootng, sports of BIF...you are there with the good lenses. But not indoors."

Come on, what you are telling here. Even the E-M1.1 since fw 3.0 was a good sports camera, with the right lenses. I shot a lot in dark halls with it: https://flic.kr/s/aHsk7M234b

I expect the mkII to be much better even !

Cheers
Horst

Jorginho · Jan 5, 2017

horsth said:
"2) Any actionshootng, sports of BIF...you are there with the good lenses. But not indoors."

Come on, what you are telling here. Even the E-M1.1 since fw 3.0 was a good sports camera, with the right lenses. I shot a lot in dark halls with it: https://flic.kr/s/aHsk7M234b

I expect the mkII to be much better even !

Cheers
Horst

You simply agree. This is a LEica nocticron F1.2 lens. You got close enough to the action to get this shot and it looks great. But that is not the general way. People visiting a hockey game, indoor sports where an audience has a lace on some chairs further away will need to use zooms. Now try to do that with an F2.8 lens. It is simply 2,5 stops less good. That is a ISO8000-10000 shot you are looking at. And the images falls apart.

horsth · Jan 5, 2017

Jorginho said:
horsth said:

"2) Any actionshootng, sports of BIF...you are there with the good lenses. But not indoors."

Come on, what you are telling here. Even the E-M1.1 since fw 3.0 was a good sports camera, with the right lenses. I shot a lot in dark halls with it: https://flic.kr/s/aHsk7M234b

I expect the mkII to be much better even !

Cheers
Horst

Click to expand...

You simply agree. This is a LEica nocticron F1.2 lens. You got close enough to the action to get this shot and it looks great. But that is not the general way. People visiting a hockey game, indoor sports where an audience has a lace on some chairs further away will need to use zooms. Now try to do that with an F2.8 lens. It is simply 2,5 stops less good. That is a ISO8000-10000 shot you are looking at. And the images falls apart.

Completely wrong. I shot also with an Oly 75mm/f1.8 and if necessary you can put an Oly 1.7x converter on it with no aperture degration. I would shoot every indoor game with it. Both lenses are so good, cropping is not a problem at all. I'm sure with the mkII I can use my 40-150/f2.8 indoors as well. Will be ISO 3400 to 6400, depending on the lighting. No problem with a little pp in Lightroom. I shoot Raw only, even small underexposures are possible with the new sensor.
Cheers

Nemo0815 · Jan 5, 2017

horsth said:
Jorginho said:

horsth said:

"2) Any actionshootng, sports of BIF...you are there with the good lenses. But not indoors."

Come on, what you are telling here. Even the E-M1.1 since fw 3.0 was a good sports camera, with the right lenses. I shot a lot in dark halls with it: https://flic.kr/s/aHsk7M234b

I expect the mkII to be much better even !

Cheers
Horst

Click to expand...

You simply agree. This is a LEica nocticron F1.2 lens. You got close enough to the action to get this shot and it looks great. But that is not the general way. People visiting a hockey game, indoor sports where an audience has a lace on some chairs further away will need to use zooms. Now try to do that with an F2.8 lens. It is simply 2,5 stops less good. That is a ISO8000-10000 shot you are looking at. And the images falls apart.

Click to expand...

Completely wrong. I shot also with an Oly 75mm/f1.8 and if necessary you can put an Oly 1.7x converter on it with no aperture degration. I would shoot every indoor game with it. Both lenses are so good, cropping is not a problem at all. I'm sure with the mkII I can use my 40-150/f2.8 indoors as well. Will be ISO 3400 to 6400, depending on the lighting. No problem with a little pp in Lightroom. I shoot Raw only, even small underexposures are possible with the new sensor.
Cheers

I'm not sure that will do, since the Oly PDAF heavily relies on enough light which will be just not there at those ISOs.

JaKing · Jan 5, 2017

Nemo0815 said:
horsth said:

Jorginho said:

horsth said:

"2) Any actionshootng, sports of BIF...you are there with the good lenses. But not indoors."

Come on, what you are telling here. Even the E-M1.1 since fw 3.0 was a good sports camera, with the right lenses. I shot a lot in dark halls with it: https://flic.kr/s/aHsk7M234b

I expect the mkII to be much better even !

Cheers
Horst

Click to expand...

You simply agree. This is a LEica nocticron F1.2 lens. You got close enough to the action to get this shot and it looks great. But that is not the general way. People visiting a hockey game, indoor sports where an audience has a lace on some chairs further away will need to use zooms. Now try to do that with an F2.8 lens. It is simply 2,5 stops less good. That is a ISO8000-10000 shot you are looking at. And the images falls apart.

Click to expand...

Completely wrong. I shot also with an Oly 75mm/f1.8 and if necessary you can put an Oly 1.7x converter on it with no aperture degration. I would shoot every indoor game with it. Both lenses are so good, cropping is not a problem at all. I'm sure with the mkII I can use my 40-150/f2.8 indoors as well. Will be ISO 3400 to 6400, depending on the lighting. No problem with a little pp in Lightroom. I shoot Raw only, even small underexposures are possible with the new sensor.
Cheers

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that will do, since the Oly PDAF heavily relies on enough light which will be just not there at those ISOs.

You are speaking from experience, I presume?

I have found that even my aperture-challenged f/4 12-100 and E-M1 MkII will focus accurately and pretty quickly at light levels where I cannot even see the detail of the object being photographed, and I have very good vision in the dark (it's bright light where I have problems - I wear sunglasses at all times in daylight ... ).

Why is it that I can predict the content and tone of your posts, even before I read them?
Maybe there's a certain pattern to them? Just a thought ...

Jorginho · Jan 5, 2017

Yes well....look: outdoor action has zero limits. JUst use any zof the good zooms or that Oly 300 F4 primes and you'll get good IQ and a good keeperrate.

When it comes to indoors, the zooms will at least seriously hamper or test you and you will be pretty reliant on hwo well the venue is lit now. And yes I do speak out of experience. A FF cam with 1,5 to 2 stops better noise make it so much easier, far less restricted.

So I stick to my point that indoor action is one of the last places where mFTs are challenged. We know the new sensors are not going to help us here a lot. But may be a little.

Kostaseg · Jan 5, 2017

Dear friend before 2 months I was shooting the same plans with a friend he has a D3s. Wasn't action shots but I was very disappointed from D3s about the noise when I see his photo at my MAC screen. Photos were sunsets and some portraits indoor and outdoor.

The man is professional and he shoots football with D3s and Nikon 400 f2.8. Very nice photos about DR, Bokeh but when I am trying to see them in higher resolution about 1:2 No 1:1, are foul from noise and they are edited. Ok at my iPad screen without zooming look perfect but if I do double click on the screen..... the noise is extremely.

i don't know how bad or good is EM1 mk2, I love MFT cameras because for my style they give me more than any other system camera at the same money and I can have it all the day with me at a small bag with 3 lenses, but if I photographed indoor-outdoor action, BIF, I should buy a Nikon D500.

i am shooting landscapes, street day and night, portraits and some events. I don't use tripod, so there isn't other camera can shoot with 1/4 or 1/2 handheld at real dark situations.

Olympus 12-40mm Pro 1/2 f2.8 ISO 400

--
Olympus EM5, EM10 mk2, 12-40 f2.8 Pro, Sigma 30mm f1.4, Sigma 60mm f2.8, Oly 40-150 f4-5.6

Nemo0815 · Jan 5, 2017

JaKing said:
Nemo0815 said:

horsth said:

Jorginho said:

horsth said:

"2) Any actionshootng, sports of BIF...you are there with the good lenses. But not indoors."

Come on, what you are telling here. Even the E-M1.1 since fw 3.0 was a good sports camera, with the right lenses. I shot a lot in dark halls with it: https://flic.kr/s/aHsk7M234b

I expect the mkII to be much better even !

Cheers
Horst

Click to expand...

You simply agree. This is a LEica nocticron F1.2 lens. You got close enough to the action to get this shot and it looks great. But that is not the general way. People visiting a hockey game, indoor sports where an audience has a lace on some chairs further away will need to use zooms. Now try to do that with an F2.8 lens. It is simply 2,5 stops less good. That is a ISO8000-10000 shot you are looking at. And the images falls apart.

Click to expand...

Completely wrong. I shot also with an Oly 75mm/f1.8 and if necessary you can put an Oly 1.7x converter on it with no aperture degration. I would shoot every indoor game with it. Both lenses are so good, cropping is not a problem at all. I'm sure with the mkII I can use my 40-150/f2.8 indoors as well. Will be ISO 3400 to 6400, depending on the lighting. No problem with a little pp in Lightroom. I shoot Raw only, even small underexposures are possible with the new sensor.
Cheers

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that will do, since the Oly PDAF heavily relies on enough light which will be just not there at those ISOs.

Click to expand...

You are speaking from experience, I presume?

I have found that even my aperture-challenged f/4 12-100 and E-M1 MkII will focus accurately and pretty quickly at light levels where I cannot even see the detail of the object being photographed, and I have very good vision in the dark (it's bright light where I have problems - I wear sunglasses at all times in daylight ... ).

Why is it that I can predict the content and tone of your posts, even before I read them?
Maybe there's a certain pattern to them? Just a thought ...

Jorginho · Jan 5, 2017

Kostaseg said:
Dear friend before 2 months I was shooting the same plans with a friend he has a D3s. Wasn't action shots but I was very disappointed from D3s about the noise when I see his photo at my MAC screen. Photos were sunsets and some portraits indoor and outdoor.

The man is professional and he shoots football with D3s and Nikon 400 f2.8. Very nice photos about DR, Bokeh but when I am trying to see them in higher resolution about 1:2 No 1:1, are foul from noise and they are edited. Ok at my iPad screen without zooming look perfect but if I do double click on the screen..... the noise is extremely.

i don't know how bad or good is EM1 mk2, I love MFT cameras because for my style they give me more than any other system camera at the same money and I can have it all the day with me at a small bag with 3 lenses, but if I photographed indoor-outdoor action, BIF, I should buy a Nikon D500.

i am shooting landscapes, street day and night, portraits and some events. I don't use tripod, so there isn't other camera can shoot with 1/4 or 1/2 handheld at real dark situations.

Olympus 12-40mm Pro 1/2 f2.8 ISO 400

--
Olympus EM5, EM10 mk2, 12-40 f2.8 Pro, Sigma 30mm f1.4, Sigma 60mm f2.8, Oly 40-150 f4-5.6

Agreed. D500 is simply better. Just that extra stop in better noise that matters. Excellent AF system that works in low light too (unsure here about EM1.2). I do know DFD seems to work nice in low light (much lower light than any indoor venue).

Chippy99 · Jan 5, 2017

tinternaut said:
And some wouldn't even want to go above 800 - YMMV. So yeah, a case of expectations set to high.

I guess it depends on (a) how fussy you are about noise. Personally, a bit of grain in a photo does not bother me in the slightest,

and (b) what sort of NR you choose. Someone not prepared to go above 800 is just plain bonkers IMHO. Stick a well exposed 3200 ISO shot through DXO Prime noise reduction and it's nigh on identical to another shot at 200 ISO. Pixel-peeping you can tell the difference, but only just.

DonParrot · Jan 5, 2017

JaKing said:
Nemo0815 said:

horsth said:

Jorginho said:

horsth said:

"2) Any actionshootng, sports of BIF...you are there with the good lenses. But not indoors."

Come on, what you are telling here. Even the E-M1.1 since fw 3.0 was a good sports camera, with the right lenses. I shot a lot in dark halls with it: https://flic.kr/s/aHsk7M234b

I expect the mkII to be much better even !

Cheers
Horst

Click to expand...

You simply agree. This is a LEica nocticron F1.2 lens. You got close enough to the action to get this shot and it looks great. But that is not the general way. People visiting a hockey game, indoor sports where an audience has a lace on some chairs further away will need to use zooms. Now try to do that with an F2.8 lens. It is simply 2,5 stops less good. That is a ISO8000-10000 shot you are looking at. And the images falls apart.

Click to expand...

Completely wrong. I shot also with an Oly 75mm/f1.8 and if necessary you can put an Oly 1.7x converter on it with no aperture degration. I would shoot every indoor game with it. Both lenses are so good, cropping is not a problem at all. I'm sure with the mkII I can use my 40-150/f2.8 indoors as well. Will be ISO 3400 to 6400, depending on the lighting. No problem with a little pp in Lightroom. I shoot Raw only, even small underexposures are possible with the new sensor.
Cheers

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that will do, since the Oly PDAF heavily relies on enough light which will be just not there at those ISOs.

Click to expand...

You are speaking from experience, I presume?

I have found that even my aperture-challenged f/4 12-100 and E-M1 MkII will focus accurately and pretty quickly at light levels where I cannot even see the detail of the object being photographed, and I have very good vision in the dark (it's bright light where I have problems - I wear sunglasses at all times in daylight ... ).

Why is it that I can predict the content and tone of your posts, even before I read them?

That's because it all comes from the Panny-deciple prayer book.

JaKing said:
Maybe there's a certain pattern to them? Just a thought ...

keithinmelbourne · Jan 5, 2017

Ozonation said:
Before it came out, I was scouring the web for any reviews of the EM1Mk2 for shooting indoor sports. Finding almost none, I decided to get it given my local store has a generous return policy and they knew I would be testing it out.

Nice camera - great grip, etc. But I has hoping - probably unreasonably - that it could give me clean images at ISO 4000 to 5000. Not really, at least compared to my Nikon D3s. Yes, I know, that might be an unreasonable comparison, but I wanted to see if the latest m4/3 camera could replace my aging D3s and be "good enough".If so, then I would migrate all of action/sports photography to the Olympus. Nikon's just getting too expensive.

Typically settings would be wide open at f2.8, shooting 1/400 to 1/500, at ISO 4000+, for an indoor collegiate basketball game.

I also found that the tracking could not quite keep up; sorry perhaps it could, but I just could not find focus sometimes during peak action.

So, I guess it's going back - a little disappointing. But have the others found situations it excels in (other than being a small form factor)?

I have moved from a Canon 6D and 1DsMkIII to the E-M1II. In indoor situations I have the Olympus to be as good as these cameras for one reason. On the 6D and the 1DsMkIII the AF points did not allow me to fill the frame. The E-M1II's AF points, however, covers the frame, and I find that I am not cropping as much. Who knows, but this alone may give me one or two stops. In terms of CAF tracking the E-M1II is incredible. My biggest problem is sorting out which files I keep. Another thing I have noticed is that in difficult light the E-M1II's peaking allows me to manually focus quite easily. none of this was possible with my DSLRs.

DonParrot · Jan 5, 2017

Jorginho said:
Yes well....look: outdoor action has zero limits. JUst use any zof the good zooms or that Oly 300 F4 primes and you'll get good IQ and a good keeperrate.

When it comes to indoors, the zooms will at least seriously hamper or test you and you will be pretty reliant on hwo well the venue is lit now. And yes I do speak out of experience. A FF cam with 1,5 to 2 stops better noise make it so much easier, far less restricted.

So I stick to my point that indoor action is one of the last places where mFTs are challenged. We know the new sensors are not going to help us here a lot. But may be a little.

Well this doesn't change the limits of our sensor - as far as we are ready to regard it as a limited sensor - but the point you talked about further up won't happen in Germany. If you are attending a major event over here, nobody will let you on the stands with a camera equipped with a big-ish zoom. They all are keen on protecting their picture rights and you will have to leave your cam at the gate. So you either are accredited or you won't shoot any good pictures. While I have my doubts if pics shot from the grandstands can be great anyway. Okay, from the first rows perhaps, but apart from that...

Tommi K1 · Jan 5, 2017

Nemo0815 said:
JaKing said:

Nemo0815 said:

horsth said:

Jorginho said:

horsth said:

"2) Any actionshootng, sports of BIF...you are there with the good lenses. But not indoors."

Come on, what you are telling here. Even the E-M1.1 since fw 3.0 was a good sports camera, with the right lenses. I shot a lot in dark halls with it: https://flic.kr/s/aHsk7M234b

I expect the mkII to be much better even !

Cheers
Horst

Click to expand...

You simply agree. This is a LEica nocticron F1.2 lens. You got close enough to the action to get this shot and it looks great. But that is not the general way. People visiting a hockey game, indoor sports where an audience has a lace on some chairs further away will need to use zooms. Now try to do that with an F2.8 lens. It is simply 2,5 stops less good. That is a ISO8000-10000 shot you are looking at. And the images falls apart.

Click to expand...

Completely wrong. I shot also with an Oly 75mm/f1.8 and if necessary you can put an Oly 1.7x converter on it with no aperture degration. I would shoot every indoor game with it. Both lenses are so good, cropping is not a problem at all. I'm sure with the mkII I can use my 40-150/f2.8 indoors as well. Will be ISO 3400 to 6400, depending on the lighting. No problem with a little pp in Lightroom. I shoot Raw only, even small underexposures are possible with the new sensor.
Cheers

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that will do, since the Oly PDAF heavily relies on enough light which will be just not there at those ISOs.

Click to expand...

You are speaking from experience, I presume?

I have found that even my aperture-challenged f/4 12-100 and E-M1 MkII will focus accurately and pretty quickly at light levels where I cannot even see the detail of the object being photographed, and I have very good vision in the dark (it's bright light where I have problems - I wear sunglasses at all times in daylight ... ).

Why is it that I can predict the content and tone of your posts, even before I read them?
Maybe there's a certain pattern to them? Just a thought ...

--
br, john, from you know where
My gear list and sordid past are here: https://www.dpreview.com/members/1558378718/overview
Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/v/main-page/

Click to expand...

We're talking about CAF in low light scenarios. This is a common restriction of on-sensor PDAF, since the light used by each pixel of an on-sensor PDAF array is much less than the amount of light used by a dedicated PDAF unit.

Sure... Why so many DSLR has f/5.6 or f/8 as their limit to be able focus.....

E-M1 can focus accurately in lower light than you do indoor sports, unless it happens to be done lights turned off.

And mk2 is totally different even more by limiting hunting that you might cause by focusing wrong subjects.

Returning Olympus EM1 Mark2

Senior Member

JesseC

Guest

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Tommi K1

Guest

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts