Reading mode: Light Dark

Returning Olympus EM1 Mark2

Go to last post
DonParrot said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Auch wenn es nur amatøre sind? Warum denn, dass kann ich gar nicht verstehen. Professionelle sport: ja dan kann ich es (ein wenig ) verstehen und die Situation ist aehnlich wie hier in Die Niederlande. beim Eisschlittlaufen kann mann glaub ich doch Photografieren. Und dass ist nicht nur Profi, dass ist in Die Niederlande ein sehr wichtige Sport. Aber die sind ganz locker.
DonParrot said:
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...

--
I wish I was an OLYgarch
Click to expand...
Overcommercialised place where individual rights are trampled on. May be we should restrict any shooting anywhere without permission. Someones right might be violated...
 
Last edited:
Jorginho said:
DonParrot said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Auch wenn es nur amatøre sind? Warum denn, dass kann ich gar nicht verstehen. Professionelle sport: ja dan kann ich es (ein wenig ) verstehen und die Situation ist aehnlich wie hier in Die Niederlande. beim Eisschlittlaufen kann mann glaub ich doch Photografieren. Und dass ist nicht nur Profi, dass ist in Die Niederlande ein sehr wichtige Sport. Aber die sind ganz locker.
Click to expand...
In germany, stret photography is virtually impossible. Or, more precicely, you may shoot pics but you mustn't publish them. Ans when it comes to the lebel of amateur sports where you are allowed to shoot without accreditation you just have to show up on two or three consequtive matchdays and they will allow you to shoot from the sidelines.
Jorginho said:
Jorginho said:
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...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Tommi K1 said:
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 ...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
DonParrot said:
Jorginho said:
DonParrot said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Auch wenn es nur amatøre sind? Warum denn, dass kann ich gar nicht verstehen. Professionelle sport: ja dan kann ich es (ein wenig ) verstehen und die Situation ist aehnlich wie hier in Die Niederlande. beim Eisschlittlaufen kann mann glaub ich doch Photografieren. Und dass ist nicht nur Profi, dass ist in Die Niederlande ein sehr wichtige Sport. Aber die sind ganz locker.
Click to expand...
In germany, stret photography is virtually impossible. Or, more precicely, you may shoot pics but you mustn't publish them.
Click to expand...
Jezus Christ! We over here have this rule: you can shoot whatever you like whenever you like. No one owns a public space where he or she happens to walk through. Publising any of those pics is allowed too. One however can protest. The protesting person must then prove that he/she suffered or will suffer consequences of this publication.

Mostly it is art and the chances of you winning a case in court is next to zero.
DonParrot said:
Ans when it comes to the lebel of amateur sports where you are allowed to shoot without accreditation you just have to show up on two or three consequtive matchdays and they will allow you to shoot from the sidelines.
Click to expand...
Seriously??? A world of difference with NL.
DonParrot said:
DonParrot said:
DonParrot said:
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...

--
I wish I was an OLYgarch
Click to expand...
Overcommercialised place where individual rights are trampled on. May be we should restrict any shooting anywhere without permission. Someones right might be violated...
Click to expand...
We are on the way to this stuation, over here. As everybody has got the rights on their pics.
Click to expand...
How do they know you have just shot them? Than can argue, but they cannot force you to give your cam and show it. Nice situations. I like to shoot people when they do not know it since the won't pose. Sometimes a pose is nice though. I also understand the people and that they do not like it. But over here it is allowed nevertheless.
 
I shoot in multiple high schools every week and have never had to shoot more than ISO 2000. I'm also not sure why focus can't keep up. I've found this camera to be amazing at C-AF or with tracking.

FYI I shoot 1/400 on indoor sports. This is probably the difference: I use the 1.8 primes since they work so well.

--
Make it a Great day!
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...
The proof of the pudding comes with the next handball game in the hall, this will be the first time with the E-M1mk2. I will use apart from the Nocti and the 75mm also my 40-50mm/f2.8 for some close-ups.

This was 2014 from the tribune ooc-jpg with my GH4 and the Pana 35-100mm/2.8 in a really dark environment (ISO5000):

a08d83459fa64b88907cd0ff7d1858d1.jpg

Not very impressive for sure. It's a crop, don't look at 100%. But I'm sure, that the mk2 with the 40-150mm/f2.8 pro will perform much better with Raw ( and Lightroom).

Add on: It's not necessary to shoot aiways 1/1000 as I did mostly, 1/500 does it also.

Cheers
 
Last edited:
Wilco318 said:
Ozonation said:
...hoping - probably unreasonably - that it could give me clean images at ISO 4000 to 5000. Not really, at least compared to my Nikon D3s.
Click to expand...
Nice clean images at iso 4000 to 5000 from a 4/3rds sensor? Not going to happen in the near future.
Click to expand...
OP might want to try the new GH5 with Panasonic lenses. Its on-board processor claims to be allowing extra-clean JPEG files at high ISO. Of course, the improvement will be one notch, not three -- but sometimes it takes remarkably little change to jump subjectively from 'not happy' to happy.
 
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.
Click to expand...
When making such claims, quote a source please. Also I presume your scenarios would mean such a poorly lit situation that considering action photography seems useless. As such, the discussion is purely academic.

Also, DFD AF has probably its own low light restrictions.

--
Thomas
 
Last edited:
What lenses were you using? Presumably the 12-40 f/2.8 and 40-150 f/2.8?

You should have considered purchasing the f/2 zooms for Olympus 4/3 cameras. You would have had the 14-35 f/2 and 35-100 f/2, covering the 28-200mm FoV. It would allow you to shoot at ISO 2000 rather than 4000. All reports I've seen about using 4/3 glass on the E-M1 II have been extremely positive, saying it's a nice upgrade over using them on the E-M1.
 
Since you can customize your C-AF settings, what did you use?

Tracking also works well but can grab the wrong person if they pass in front due to uniforms looking the same.
 
I have done a fair amount of shooting (not sports) at ISO 6400 with my E-M1 Mk1, and quite frankly, they look to be every bit as clean as the basketball image in your gallery shot with your D3s @ ISO3200. I realize that in very large format size they won't be the same.

So my question would be, what are you doing with the images you are capturing? Are you making large prints, for sale? Shooting for a magazine or other publication?

I personally think most people on these forums spend way too much time pixel peeping at 100%, when in fact, they don't need files for large output size.

I use my E-M1 Mk1's professionally to shoot corporate conferences and often find myself needing to shoot at ISO 3200 & 6400. My clients have never complain about grainy images.

If the E-M1 Mk2 does not meet your expectations, then you are wise to return it -- $2,000 is way too much for disappointment.
 
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)?
Click to expand...
Nikon's just getting too expensive? Getting? Or "has been"?

I'm not a private investigator, that I know of, but I'd assume you have Nikon glass that you stick on your D3s and you think that switching to a $2k body and getting glass with that (without mentioning what lens you actually tried on it, in this gym with no lighting) is somehow cheaper than replacing the D3s body with maybe a D500? I doubt you need a D5 for doing what you are doing. And how much cheaper do you want, seeing how you have been trying the Oly and a Fuji at seemingly the same time. Didn't by chance try your Nikon glass on the Oly (or the Fuji) did you?

Maybe get a old and pristine Nikon film camera, use your lenses, and slap some film in it and shoot in those same gyms. Come back with a report.
 
I shoot lots of indoor roller derby often in appalling light using a Panasonic GX8. My fastest and preferred lens is the Olympus 40-150 f2.8 pro. The light is often so poor that I can not get the shutter speed above 1/200 at ISO 3200.

The resulting images are grainy but far improved by converting from RAW and are good enough for professional use and printing large (as opposed to pixel peeping, where they would be criticised heavily).

Why I say have a rethink:

One thing I have done is to change my shooting style, and now often - even in good light - is to shoot at 1/60th and get some movement into the action. The players love the results.

I have not ever used a FF dedicated sports camera, and frankly am not prepared to carry that much weight around or to hold it up to my eye all day waiting for that all important critical shot.

I did test a Olympus em1 mk2 in poor light and was impressed that the ISO 6400 was very useable, but certainly not clean. So if I do get one I would not expect to use it over ISO 3200 for general work.
 
because I thought it would be as small and light as my E-M1...... seriously, there are a zillion reviews and comparisons out there that show you the difference in m4/3 and FF files at higher ISOs and you blindly buy the E-M1 II with some made up expectations, return it and then even worse are willing to admit it in a public forum?
 
daddyo said:
I have done a fair amount of shooting (not sports) at ISO 6400 with my E-M1 Mk1, and quite frankly, they look to be every bit as clean as the basketball image in your gallery shot with your D3s @ ISO3200. I realize that in very large format size they won't be the same.

So my question would be, what are you doing with the images you are capturing? Are you making large prints, for sale? Shooting for a magazine or other publication?

I personally think most people on these forums spend way too much time pixel peeping at 100%, when in fact, they don't need files for large output size.

I use my E-M1 Mk1's professionally to shoot corporate conferences and often find myself needing to shoot at ISO 3200 & 6400. My clients have never complain about grainy images.

If the E-M1 Mk2 does not meet your expectations, then you are wise to return it -- $2,000 is way too much for disappointment.
Click to expand...
 
Jorginho said:
DonParrot said:
Jorginho said:
DonParrot said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Auch wenn es nur amatøre sind? Warum denn, dass kann ich gar nicht verstehen. Professionelle sport: ja dan kann ich es (ein wenig ) verstehen und die Situation ist aehnlich wie hier in Die Niederlande. beim Eisschlittlaufen kann mann glaub ich doch Photografieren. Und dass ist nicht nur Profi, dass ist in Die Niederlande ein sehr wichtige Sport. Aber die sind ganz locker.
Click to expand...
In germany, stret photography is virtually impossible. Or, more precicely, you may shoot pics but you mustn't publish them.
Click to expand...
Jezus Christ! We over here have this rule: you can shoot whatever you like whenever you like. No one owns a public space where he or she happens to walk through. Publising any of those pics is allowed too. One however can protest. The protesting person must then prove that he/she suffered or will suffer consequences of this publication.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that would be nice. But legal action after celebrities were shot in the public - such as Prince August, the ex of Princess Caroline of Monaco when he was caught peeing at the Turkish pavillon during the Expo in Hannover - resulted in court decisions saying that the individual's right on their pictures is to be rated higher than anything else. The point that somebody moving in the public is seen by the public and has to behave appropriately apparently doesn't count in this country.
Jorginho said:
Mostly it is art and the chances of you winning a case in court is next to zero.
Jorginho said:
Ans when it comes to the lebel of amateur sports where you are allowed to shoot without accreditation you just have to show up on two or three consequtive matchdays and they will allow you to shoot from the sidelines.
Click to expand...
Seriously??? A world of difference with NL.
Jorginho said:
Jorginho said:
Jorginho said:
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...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Clayton1985 said:
because I thought it would be as small and light as my E-M1...... seriously, there are a zillion reviews and comparisons out there that show you the difference in m4/3 and FF files at higher ISOs and you blindly buy the E-M1 II with some made up expectations, return it and then even worse are willing to admit it in a public forum?
Click to expand...
Thanks for that denigrating commentary...

I looked at multiple reviews on the performance of the EM1Mk2; few, if any, looked seriously at indoor sporting scenarios (basketball, volleyball) and reported real life experiences. Shooting linear action movements in good sunshine is great, but not the comparison I need. There's a lot more to shooting high action sports than simple ISO comparisons. And no, I did not expect m4/3 to be the *same* as my Nikon FX, I was only looking for *good enough*. I've shot m4/3 before: I have good glass, but was waiting to see if a camera could finally get to that level. Blind? I don't think so.

But you know what? Olympus was clearly intending this camera to take on Nikon/Canon in the action arena with its aggressively marketed specs of high fps, improved sensor, better low light performance, C-AF, focus points, blah blah blah. So... sorry if I actually thought it *might* work.
 
Jorginho said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thanks! Your insights and shooting scenarios are very helpful!
 
Adrian Harris said:
I shoot lots of indoor roller derby often in appalling light using a Panasonic GX8. My fastest and preferred lens is the Olympus 40-150 f2.8 pro. The light is often so poor that I can not get the shutter speed above 1/200 at ISO 3200.

The resulting images are grainy but far improved by converting from RAW and are good enough for professional use and printing large (as opposed to pixel peeping, where they would be criticised heavily).

Why I say have a rethink:

One thing I have done is to change my shooting style, and now often - even in good light - is to shoot at 1/60th and get some movement into the action. The players love the results.

I have not ever used a FF dedicated sports camera, and frankly am not prepared to carry that much weight around or to hold it up to my eye all day waiting for that all important critical shot.

I did test a Olympus em1 mk2 in poor light and was impressed that the ISO 6400 was very useable, but certainly not clean. So if I do get one I would not expect to use it over ISO 3200 for general work.
Click to expand...
 
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...
Huh. Nice gallery. What lens/setup did you use, and how close could you stand to the action?

It could be a difference in style too... I shoot much tighter and really try to isolate the player.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top