I've sold my Sony A-mount gear and am looking carefully at the Olympus platform to shoot my active kids in various indoor and outdoor sports. My primary reasons for a change are: improved speed, better lens selection and smaller size.
My Sony A77 [w. 70-200 f2.8] couldn't capture indoor soccer very well. It did great at indoor hockey in rinks that had LED lighting. With my A77, I never had the need to go beyond 1600 ISO which is where things started to get noisy. With the cheap 1.8 prime, I never needed a flash for indoor portraits which I loved and I'm hoping that the Oly 25mm f1.2 will give me similar results.
As with you, my expectations aren't too high. I'm hoping that the EM1MK2 will have comparable performance to the A77, 6 year old technology.
I think I'm going to put my wallet back in my pocket and will keep looking for EM1MK2 and XT-2 images taken in similar environments - gyms, municipal ice-rinks and other indoor environments. Outdoor, I have no doubt that I'll net more keepers with the EM1MK2.
Thank you for sharing your experiences as I find myself on the same road as you, even though you just took the last exit.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Returning Olympus EM1 Mark2
- Thread starter Ozonation
- Start date
Franki2
Active member
[No message]
Last edited:
keithinmelbourne
Senior Member
I regularly shoot in dimly lit gyms for a dance company of disabled people, on a voluntary basis. I was just changing to M43 when the last Christmas practice session was on. I took my trusty Canon 6D (now sold) and my new E-M5II and the Oly 75mm. The files that came back from the 6D were pretty clean (as usual); the files from the E-M5II were a bit noisey, but they weren't bad. They weren't bad enough for me to bother denoising (not a real word I think).
On the whole I was happier with the Oly because there was little or no cropping. I was able to place people in the frame quite easily. My 6D, on the other hand, required a fair bit of cropping, because the outer AF points cluster near the centre of the frame, and when you're trying to get eyes sharp with moving subjects it is difficult to frame them using a 6D or even my old 1DsIII. Since then I have got the E-M1II and it's a completely different ball game. I'm now getting a great deal more shots because the AF is . . . is awesome!
I have some more sessions coming up and I feel confident I can get the job done. BTW, no one I know, except for maybe a few photographers, ever comment about noise. In fact, I have to point it out to them, particularly at times I have had to shoot in dark places. Most people are amazed you can shoot in those places without a flash. Anyway here are a few shots from my E-M5II.
--
Every day is a good day! Wumen
broady
melbourne, frankston, photographer, weddings, children's portraits, natural portraits,
www.keithbroadphotography.com
Attachments
TN Args
Forum Pro
Another great story from someone delivering lots of photos to external clients. The use of JPEG might be driven by convenience, but the fact that it satisfies all concerned is telling, IMHO.
When I look at all the work and emphasis that manufacturers put into their JPEG engines, even more on their top models than on budget models, I think there is a gap between the typical hobbyist's disdain for shooting JPEG and the excellence that these cameras can deliver in JPEG -- in the right hands.
For example, look at the new GH5 that I suggested earlier to you (but with Panny lenses). Its JPEG engine uses several advanced techniques to get really good results, which won't be in the raw files without doing a lot of manual editing. It's an interesting scenario.
cheers
M
MShot
Guest
3200 is probably the limit
JaKing
Veteran Member
3200 ... Right ...
Rosa at ISO 6,400 with E-M1 MkI and crappy 12-50 lens ...
;-)
--
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/
M
MShot
Guest
3200 is MY limit.
Hard to compare apples to apples. How much light did you have? How much brighter is an EM-I MKII? How much light does the Nikon have?
Best I can do in a DARK room...
This is too unscientific.
It looks OK on a 28" high res monitor, significantly more noisy and less detailed at 6400 than at 3200 if you crop. Maybe 4000 or 5000 would be acceptable.
Best to borrow or rent one and try it with the Nikon in the same light and composition the photographer will use it in. The only way to know if the OLY will be good enough for the photographer for his uses.
This room was way, way darker than it looks in the photo, too dark to think this sensor could produce the results you see. I would not try to carry on a conversation without turning on more light. Too dark a room to read or socialize in though in the photo it looks brighter.
The subject also matters. The shutter speed is pretty slow. OK for hand held still life, but not for capturing movement.
I believe MFT does better in low light than some people think and claim. I tested it side by side with a Nikon 7100 and thought the MFT camera did better. If close, I'd choose the MFT camera for size and weight.
PL/7 Panny 20mm F/1.7 1/25 ISO 6400
PL/7 Panny 20 f/1.7 1/15 ISO 3200
Hard to compare apples to apples. How much light did you have? How much brighter is an EM-I MKII? How much light does the Nikon have?
Best I can do in a DARK room...
This is too unscientific.
It looks OK on a 28" high res monitor, significantly more noisy and less detailed at 6400 than at 3200 if you crop. Maybe 4000 or 5000 would be acceptable.
Best to borrow or rent one and try it with the Nikon in the same light and composition the photographer will use it in. The only way to know if the OLY will be good enough for the photographer for his uses.
This room was way, way darker than it looks in the photo, too dark to think this sensor could produce the results you see. I would not try to carry on a conversation without turning on more light. Too dark a room to read or socialize in though in the photo it looks brighter.
The subject also matters. The shutter speed is pretty slow. OK for hand held still life, but not for capturing movement.
I believe MFT does better in low light than some people think and claim. I tested it side by side with a Nikon 7100 and thought the MFT camera did better. If close, I'd choose the MFT camera for size and weight.
PL/7 Panny 20mm F/1.7 1/25 ISO 6400
PL/7 Panny 20 f/1.7 1/15 ISO 3200
W
Wu Jiaqiu
Guest
with a faster lens you could have knocked the ISO right down.....or.....waited till the light was better....unless the cat has a problem with brighter light of course, i do wonder how a E-510 would have handled it though3200 ... Right ...
Rosa at ISO 6,400 with E-M1 MkI and crappy 12-50 lens ...
;-)
--
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/
JaKing
Veteran Member
I do understand what you are saying, MS.
While ISO 25,600 JPEGs are a joke in really poor light on the MkI, I have got good shots using RAW at ISO 12,800 where movement of the shooting platform (pontoon bridge, with 100+ people walking on it) meant that even the fantastic D5 would struggle badly, even using an ILIS lens. One would simply have to ramp the ISO so high to get the SS up sufficiently that any DR left would be minimal.
e.g. this was taken with my MkI + the maligned 14-42 EZ at ISO 12,800. The JPEG was pretty lousy, but the RAW scrubbed up OK.
I guesstimate that the JPEGs from my MkII are around 1-2 stops better than my MkI for a specific shot in my living room, so a relatively controlled shooting environment. I can't speak for the RAWs as yet.
Eureka Tower. E-M1 MkI + 14-42 EZ at ISO 12,800. Check the shutter speed ...
--
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/
While ISO 25,600 JPEGs are a joke in really poor light on the MkI, I have got good shots using RAW at ISO 12,800 where movement of the shooting platform (pontoon bridge, with 100+ people walking on it) meant that even the fantastic D5 would struggle badly, even using an ILIS lens. One would simply have to ramp the ISO so high to get the SS up sufficiently that any DR left would be minimal.
e.g. this was taken with my MkI + the maligned 14-42 EZ at ISO 12,800. The JPEG was pretty lousy, but the RAW scrubbed up OK.
I guesstimate that the JPEGs from my MkII are around 1-2 stops better than my MkI for a specific shot in my living room, so a relatively controlled shooting environment. I can't speak for the RAWs as yet.
Eureka Tower. E-M1 MkI + 14-42 EZ at ISO 12,800. Check the shutter speed ...
--
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/
J
junk1
Guest
Too bad the orignal poster I assume doesn't have comparison shots taken at same aperture and shutter speeds.
My understanding is that roughly half of the light is being converted into electrons by current gen sensors, so at best we can theoretically double the amount of energy captured. A recent article indicated most of the improvements over the past (5-10?) years has been due to signal processing, not via better sensors. If we are already supposedly capturing half of the light, I think that trend will never end.
Something does not add up though - aren't organic sensors supposed to be more than 1 stop better? I could be mistaken somewhere....
My understanding is that roughly half of the light is being converted into electrons by current gen sensors, so at best we can theoretically double the amount of energy captured. A recent article indicated most of the improvements over the past (5-10?) years has been due to signal processing, not via better sensors. If we are already supposedly capturing half of the light, I think that trend will never end.
Something does not add up though - aren't organic sensors supposed to be more than 1 stop better? I could be mistaken somewhere....
F
Fun 4 all
Guest
So you think a more expensive FF camera with an F/2.8 zoom will out perform an E-M1 mark II. The FF sensor is larger and does use less light, so at first it makes sense.
But the problem is the MFT primes will beat those 70-200mm F/2.8 zooms. For example, the 75mm F/1.8 in equivalent terms is 150mm F/3.6. That means in low light it will outperform your FF camera with an F/2.8 zoom.
If you can find a sub $1000 small 150mm F/3.5 prime for your full frame camera, please let us know.
Last edited:
W
Wu Jiaqiu
Guest
So you think a more expensive FF camera with an F/2.8 zoom will out perform an E-M1 mark II. The FF sensor is larger and does use less light, so at first it makes sense.
But the problem is the MFT primes will beat those 70-200mm F/2.8 zooms. For example, the 75mm F/1.8 in equivalent terms is 150mm F/3.6. That means in low light it will outperform your FF camera with an F/2.8 zoom.
If you can find a sub $1000 small 150mm F/3.5 prime for your full frame camera, please let us know.
So... you're saying that in 35mm equivalent terms... if I set my 70-200mm f2.8 at 150mm (and at f2.8 obviously), it will be beaten by an equivalent 150mm f3.6?So you think a more expensive FF camera with an F/2.8 zoom will out perform an E-M1 mark II. The FF sensor is larger and does use less light, so at first it makes sense.
But the problem is the MFT primes will beat those 70-200mm F/2.8 zooms. For example, the 75mm F/1.8 in equivalent terms is 150mm F/3.6. That means in low light it will outperform your FF camera with an F/2.8 zoom.
If you can find a sub $1000 small 150mm F/3.5 prime for your full frame camera, please let us know.
F
Fun 4 all
Guest
So you think a more expensive FF camera with an F/2.8 zoom will out perform an E-M1 mark II. The FF sensor is larger and does use less light, so at first it makes sense.
But the problem is the MFT primes will beat those 70-200mm F/2.8 zooms. For example, the 75mm F/1.8 in equivalent terms is 150mm F/3.6. That means in low light it will outperform your FF camera with an F/2.8 zoom.
If you can find a sub $1000 small 150mm F/3.5 prime for your full frame camera, please let us know.
W
Wu Jiaqiu
Guest
So you think a more expensive FF camera with an F/2.8 zoom will out perform an E-M1 mark II. The FF sensor is larger and does use less light, so at first it makes sense.
But the problem is the MFT primes will beat those 70-200mm F/2.8 zooms. For example, the 75mm F/1.8 in equivalent terms is 150mm F/3.6. That means in low light it will outperform your FF camera with an F/2.8 zoom.
If you can find a sub $1000 small 150mm F/3.5 prime for your full frame camera, please let us know.
So you think a more expensive FF camera with an F/2.8 zoom will out perform an E-M1 mark II. The FF sensor is larger and does use less light, so at first it makes sense.
But the problem is the MFT primes will beat those 70-200mm F/2.8 zooms. For example, the 75mm F/1.8 in equivalent terms is 150mm F/3.6. That means in low light it will outperform your FF camera with an F/2.8 zoom.
If you can find a sub $1000 small 150mm F/3.5 prime for your full frame camera, please let us know.
J
Jozef M
Guest
Shoot raw, get DxO software to do the conversion and use auto iso noise reduction in the settings of the software. The noise will be acceptible to you, I guess.
Jozef
knickerhawk
Veteran Member
In theory, at least, the D3s should have about a one stop advantage because you're still not at complete aperture equivalence, so I don't know what Fun 4 all is trying to argue. Of course, the EM1ii is newer tech than the D3s, which might make up for a small amount of the difference and the greater pixel density allows for some additional NR manipulation relative to the D3s, so perhaps in the end the visual difference will be insignificant for your needs. A simple test would be to compare some shots taken on the D3s at f/3.6 at 3200 ISO and the EM1ii at f/2.8 at 1600 ISO (same shutter speed for both). Up/down size to equal viewing sizes, add a little more NR to the EM1ii and compare the IQ.So... you're saying that in 35mm equivalent terms... if I set my 70-200mm f2.8 at 150mm (and at f2.8 obviously), it will be beaten by an equivalent 150mm f3.6?So you think a more expensive FF camera with an F/2.8 zoom will out perform an E-M1 mark II. The FF sensor is larger and does use less light, so at first it makes sense.
But the problem is the MFT primes will beat those 70-200mm F/2.8 zooms. For example, the 75mm F/1.8 in equivalent terms is 150mm F/3.6. That means in low light it will outperform your FF camera with an F/2.8 zoom.
If you can find a sub $1000 small 150mm F/3.5 prime for your full frame camera, please let us know.
Last edited:
hello
I've looked at your flickr page with interest. What seems odd to me is that your pics indoors with the nocticron seem noisier than the ones with the 75 oly , iso roughly equivalent .
Do you use any nr soft ?
thanks
F
Fun 4 all
Guest
So you think a more expensive FF camera with an F/2.8 zoom will out perform an E-M1 mark II. The FF sensor is larger and does use less light, so at first it makes sense.
But the problem is the MFT primes will beat those 70-200mm F/2.8 zooms. For example, the 75mm F/1.8 in equivalent terms is 150mm F/3.6. That means in low light it will outperform your FF camera with an F/2.8 zoom.
If you can find a sub $1000 small 150mm F/3.5 prime for your full frame camera, please let us know.
Similar threads
- User review
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum