Not my cup of tea

Status
Not open for further replies.

FeDost

Active member
Messages
79
Reaction score
77
Location
Always moving
I bought this camera with the 17mm f1.8 as a kit while traveling through different Asian countries, for this trip, I took with me only an old and "dusty" Ricoh GR (who died a few months later).

The first impressions were good, great image stabilization, fast autofocus, Hi Res mode, weather sealing, and compactness made me believe that this camera would be perfect for me but (SPOILER) soon I find out that I was wrong.

The build quality is not bad, wheels are easy to easy to be accidentally moved, dials are made of plastic and up and down plate in magnesium.
The first thing I did was importing some shots (raw) that I took on the way to my hostel. At first sight, the IQ didn't convince me, in Hi Res mode is a bit better but I shoot 99% handheld and I take my little tripod with me only if I know that I will need it. The images weren't sharp as I expected, maybe the Ricoh GR and other Fujis cameras spoiled me so I thought that maybe I just need to get used to it. I decided to care less about getting sharp images but another thing started bothering me: the Dynamic Range in post production.
When I imported the first shots on Lightroom I didn't find any big issues, those shots were taken in good light conditions, the lights and colors handling wasn't great for me, but I tried to convince myself again that this is a different camera and I need time to learn to use it properly and get used to it.

I then started trying to set up the most comfortable configuration for my shooting style but soon I find out that the Olympus menu is quite complicated and doesn't allow me to fully customize the Fn buttons; for example: in aperture priority, I wanted the ability to change ISO on the front wheel and aperture on the back wheel. but that wasn't possible, on the front wheel I only could keep exposure compensation or white balance. Eventually, I ended up with exposure compensation.
There are other buttons that are impossible to customize, like the one on in the right hand side of the lens which is used for depth of field preview, in alternative I could put the ISO settings there but... no.

Talking about ISO, the performances are pretty bad. Is true that this camera have one of the best stabilization on the market but in some situations is just not enough and images taken with ISO above 1600 shows some less in details looking "waxed". Also shooting at slow shutter speed could be good for stills but for moving people or objects is not good, but I guess that depends on what picture you want to make.

Recovering lights on dark images is terrible, once I started moving the selector on Lightroom I seen heavy purple fringing; with the Ricoh GR I could only see something like that in a dark image at 6400 or 12800 ISO. I'm not comparing the two cameras because it wouldn't be fair, I expected the low light performances wouldn't be the same as the GR but 1600 is kinda too low for me, I like shooting in dark conditions.

The last thing which makes me decide to sell this camera was the 4:3 format sensor, I realized that is not my cup of tea, I prefer much more the 3:2 format, I know I could easily set up this format from the camera settings but I like to use the entire size of the sensor, also, by cropping a 16mpx image I would lose more details and doesn't seems a good idea to me.

In conclusion, I think this camera and other similar are just not for me. Don't get me wrong, this is a great camera but for my shooting taste is better if I look somewhere else to enjoy taking pictures.
 
I bought this camera with the 17mm f1.8 as a kit while traveling through different Asian countries, for this trip, I took with me only an old and "dusty" Ricoh GR (who died a few months later).

The first impressions were good, great image stabilization, fast autofocus, Hi Res mode, weather sealing, and compactness made me believe that this camera would be perfect for me but (SPOILER) soon I find out that I was wrong.

The build quality is not bad, wheels are easy to easy to be accidentally moved, dials are
I have this camera I disagree with everything you said
I'm sincerely happy for you.
Hopefully you'll find a camera and tea you'll be happy with but I sincerely doubt it
I don't understand your point. Why do you think I wouldn't find a camera I like better? Because the omd 5.2 is the best camera for everyone ever made under any aspect but I'm too stupid to understand it? Is that what you want me to say?
Yes
That had better be a joke
 
Well the 17 1.8 is not the best lens for low light shooting , imho . Also " waxy" results above iso 1600 maybe indicate you haven't turned off the noise filter . It's possible to shoot low light with m4/3 , but one has to be careful about it , and yes , dynamic range is the problem, not the noise. I tend to stay at iso 1600 max , noise filter off, sharpening -2 , and deal with theses issues in post . I have considered this last year upgrading the gear for low light shooting , and found ( I might be wrong ) that apsc isn't worth the move , only FF Canon 6D style or equiv seems to be the answer .
 
Last edited:
Sorry to hear it didn't work out for you. Indeed, with your comment "I like to shoot in dark conditions" it is possible that m43 wasn't a good fit from the very beginning. Think of m43 as a replacement for film and you'll appreciate and love it; somehow, with the advent of digital, everyone all of a sudden wants to snap a black cat in a blackened room and expect great results.

Don't worry about the replies you'll get here. The fanboys are already lining up to call you 'Troll' and flame you, because you had the nerve to say that their object of worship isn't the finest thing on planet Earth.

If you are going to shoot ISO 6400+ on a regular basis, not even APS+C s really going to be good enough for you. The Ricoh GRII gets away with it due to relatively low pixel density for an APS-C sensor - low modern resolution - allowing large pixels. Still, it's only about 2/3 stop theoretical difference, both m43 and the Ricoh are the same resolution, so you should look into a RX100 for your travels, as your posting history showed interest in.

Best of luck!
em52.......................................................................gr2 iso 3200

let you pick :-)

Don
You can find out yourself on the comparison tool on this website:
Why did you post this comparison? The Em 5.2 image looks better in terms of noise than the Ricoh GR II image and undercuts your argument,
4/3 sensors are smaller than APS-C sensors and considering that the m5-2 and the GR2 have both 16mpx is physically impossible that the Oly produce less noise than the Ricoh because on the Ricoh's sensor the pixels are bigger; So I don't really know why are you saying that, did you made a comparison yourself? I did and I could see the difference.
In that case you should have posted the comparison you made which showed the difference instead of posting a link that only proves you wrong.
 
I would never give the DPR Studio Comparison as a reference about Olympus IQ. DPR uses Adobe Camera Raw for converting the Olympus Raw files, which I gave up on long ago due to its poor results with Olympus.orf files.
Interesting warning as I'm looking at getting a Pen-F. I use Adobe dng converter+ACR on my Pana RW2 files. Do you know if there are any problems with that compared with using SilkyPix?
I’ll have to admit that once I experienced the ACR issues with the Olympus Raw, I began using SilkyPix on my LX100 Raw files as well, but haven’t done a real extensive comparison. SilkyPix conversions are much faster than OV3 so it’s pretty easy to add to the workflow without severely impacting processing time.
Thanks. Must try it some time and see how it comes out. Bad news that OV3 is slow.
 
I would never give the DPR Studio Comparison as a reference about Olympus IQ. DPR uses Adobe Camera Raw for converting the Olympus Raw files, which I gave up on long ago due to its poor results with Olympus.orf files.
Interesting warning as I'm looking at getting a Pen-F. I use Adobe dng converter+ACR on my Pana RW2 files. Do you know if there are any problems with that compared with using SilkyPix?
I’ll have to admit that once I experienced the ACR issues with the Olympus Raw, I began using SilkyPix on my LX100 Raw files as well, but haven’t done a real extensive comparison. SilkyPix conversions are much faster than OV3 so it’s pretty easy to add to the workflow without severely impacting processing time.
Thanks. Must try it some time and see how it comes out. Bad news that OV3 is slow.
One thing to be aware of....Don't just import the Raws into Lightroom or PS and then do a link to your external editor (OV3 or SilkyPix). Once you do the import into Lightroom or open the file in PS the damage has already been done by ACR. Do the conversion first before the imports.
 
This is an unnecessarily harsh post. In any case, the OP's mistake was trivial.
Then you shouldn't post your reviews like that. By doing so, you are actually spreading inaccurate information.
You should pass the text to someone more knowledgeable in English or better yet a native speaker, so it can fix those mistakes for you.
There is literally NOTHING harsh about this. Nothing. You are reading too much into it to consider it harsh.

"Then you shouldn't post your reviews like that." - agreed! If you fear that things wont translate well, then you should be mindful of this!!

"By doing so, you are actually spreading inaccurate information." - thats a FACT. You are spreading false information.

"You should pass the text to someone more knowledgeable in English or better yet a native speaker, so it can fix those mistakes for you." - this would solve the issue. This isn't harsh.

Again, you read too much into this.
 
Even more, and quite frankly: people around here are thin skinned and take negative posts and reviews seriously, and worst of all personally.

It's a CAMERA. Get a grip people. The amount of tribalism shown in this board is growing to almost intolerable levels. If someone has a problem with "your" camera then either join in to help figure things out, positive or negative outcome regardless, or if you can't handle a differing viewpoint simply grow a pair and move along to something more suited to your tastes. I'm sorry, but the world doesn't have to universally approve of everything you do and every decision that you've made, especially when it comes to your choices in consumer goods.
To be clear, there is a difference between a negative review and an inaccurate review.

For example, if someone says a camera is junk because they didnt know you had to change the dial to get something to work....thats inaccurate.

If someone says its awful because the fps shooting is low for a camera of its generation, that's different. It's a downside, and negative.

The initial responses I saw weren't because peoples' feelings were hurt about their favorite camera. It was because the OP was inaccurate about it's assessment and they believed it to be unfair.

Different.
 
IMO, review threads that discuss image quality should be ignored if they have no sample images with EXIF data. Just pointless.

Handling? Weight? UI issues? Fit of the camera features to your shooting style? All fine to include in a review without images.

But image quality? Include samples. It is pretty easy to screw up image quality with poor settings. There is also a wide variance on what people consider image quality issues. It is impossible to tell what is going on when a review rates the image quality as poor for a camera that so many people find acceptable.
Unfortunately I don't have time and place to digging through all the pics I took to add some good examples, my bad. But there are plenty of examples online, on dpreview there is a great comparison tool and sample pictures.
How would samples of photos found online help illustrate the problems YOU are having with the camera?

No time to include samples? I'd suggest saving the time on the review also because it is a waste of everyone's time.
I believe the images other people used for test the camera and write a review are produced by the same type of camera I used: the OM-D 5 m2.

Those people get paid for writing accurate reviews, I don't so I can not spend hours on writing a detailed review and take sample shots.
Did they shoot the same subjects under the same conditions using the same settings? If you don't understand why all of that matters, you shouldn't be posting reviews.
You are not forced to read my review, anybody is so don't blame me, you are wasting your time even replying to this post...
Just trying to save people's time in the future. Image reviews with no images are worthless and, frankly, annoying.
 
Sorry to hear it didn't work out for you. Indeed, with your comment "I like to shoot in dark conditions" it is possible that m43 wasn't a good fit from the very beginning. Think of m43 as a replacement for film and you'll appreciate and love it; somehow, with the advent of digital, everyone all of a sudden wants to snap a black cat in a blackened room and expect great results.

Don't worry about the replies you'll get here. The fanboys are already lining up to call you 'Troll' and flame you, because you had the nerve to say that their object of worship isn't the finest thing on planet Earth.

If you are going to shoot ISO 6400+ on a regular basis, not even APS+C s really going to be good enough for you. The Ricoh GRII gets away with it due to relatively low pixel density for an APS-C sensor - low modern resolution - allowing large pixels. Still, it's only about 2/3 stop theoretical difference, both m43 and the Ricoh are the same resolution, so you should look into a RX100 for your travels, as your posting history showed interest in.

Best of luck!
em52.......................................................................gr2 iso 3200

let you pick :-)

Don
You can find out yourself on the comparison tool on this website:
Why did you post this comparison? The Em 5.2 image looks better in terms of noise than the Ricoh GR II image and undercuts your argument,
is physically impossible that the Oly produce less noise than the Ricoh because on the Ricoh's sensor the pixels are bigger;
Total nonsense. IMO, the Ricoh's samples are noisier, especially the color noise.
 
I believe the images other people used for test the camera and write a review are produced by the same type of camera I used: the OM-D 5 m2.

Those people get paid for writing accurate reviews, I don't so I can not spend hours on writing a detailed review and take sample shots.
Did they shoot the same subjects under the same conditions using the same settings? If you don't understand why all of that matters, you shouldn't be posting reviews.
These "reviews" are user opinion pieces. Nothing more, nothing less **and** exactly what is common on the internet, from YouTube blogs to retail website feedback posts. If you are expecting high quality, purely objective reviews from common every day feedback posts - it is you who shouldn't be reading them. Every single person knows you take this type of review, the personal viewpoint, with a heathy grain of salt. Don't go holding this review(er) to some ridiculously high professional-level standard just because he is reviewing something you feel you have placed personal identification into.
 
Last edited:
Here is a review from Robin Wong and what he can get with his Olympus E-M5 II.

https://robinwong.blogspot.com/2015/02/olympus-om-d-e-m5-mark-ii-review.html

Cheers,

PM
Of course, before buying the Oly I did my research and I read many reviews but despite Robin Wong is a great photographer I believe we are not the same person and we haven't the same taste.
Yet you recommended using photographs from other reviews to demonstrate how you reviewed the E-M5 II. Why would you do that?
 
It is physically impossible that the Oly produce less noise than the Ricoh because on the Ricoh's sensor the pixels are bigger
FWIW that is not correct. The advantage is *theoretical*, that it is *should* but actual performance is based on real life circumstances. A more modern, smaller sensor might have less noise than a larger sensor of older design, as the smaller sensor may have optimized microlenses, BSI and dual gain, etc.

So YMMV with real in-camera sensor results.
 
I believe the images other people used for test the camera and write a review are produced by the same type of camera I used: the OM-D 5 m2.

Those people get paid for writing accurate reviews, I don't so I can not spend hours on writing a detailed review and take sample shots.
Did they shoot the same subjects under the same conditions using the same settings? If you don't understand why all of that matters, you shouldn't be posting reviews.
These "reviews" are user opinion pieces. Nothing more, nothing less **and** exactly what is common on the internet, from YouTube blogs to retail website feedback posts. If you are expecting high quality, purely objective reviews from common every day feedback posts - it is you who shouldn't be reading them. Every single person knows you take this type of review, the personal viewpoint, with a heathy grain of salt. Don't go holding this review(er) to some ridiculously high professional-level standard just because he is reviewing something you feel you have placed personal identification into.
So including sample photos that illustrate the image quality concerns is a "ridiculously high professional-level standard"? Ha, ha, ha..... That is the funniest thing I have read all day.

I didn't ask for any "professional level testing, just sample images. He obviously took them (or maybe not).

He has come right out and said that other reviews of the E-M5 II contain images so he doesn't need to include them. When given a link to one of those reviews that show the quality of photos that can be produced with the camera, he says:

"Robin Wong is a great photographer I believe we are not the same person and we haven't the same taste."

So which is it?

Frankly, his response was ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
I believe the images other people used for test the camera and write a review are produced by the same type of camera I used: the OM-D 5 m2.

Those people get paid for writing accurate reviews, I don't so I can not spend hours on writing a detailed review and take sample shots.
Did they shoot the same subjects under the same conditions using the same settings? If you don't understand why all of that matters, you shouldn't be posting reviews.
These "reviews" are user opinion pieces. Nothing more, nothing less **and** exactly what is common on the internet, from YouTube blogs to retail website feedback posts. If you are expecting high quality, purely objective reviews from common every day feedback posts - it is you who shouldn't be reading them. Every single person knows you take this type of review, the personal viewpoint, with a heathy grain of salt. Don't go holding this review(er) to some ridiculously high professional-level standard just because he is reviewing something you feel you have placed personal identification into.
So including sample photos that illustrate the image quality concerns is a "ridiculously high professional-level standard"? Ha, ha, ha..... That is the funniest thing I have read all day.

I didn't ask for any "professional level testing, just sample images. He obviously took them (or maybe not).
And has EVERY SINGLE REVIEW, on this site, posted photographic proof of the writer's comments along with the personal anecdotes of the equipment???

No?

Then it's YOU who is funny.

Get off your high horse. You took the review personally because how DARE someone say something negative about one of your fetishes, and you expect him to solidify his opinion without question.
 
Lesson learned : don't touch the toys from the fanboys
 
I believe the images other people used for test the camera and write a review are produced by the same type of camera I used: the OM-D 5 m2.

Those people get paid for writing accurate reviews, I don't so I can not spend hours on writing a detailed review and take sample shots.
Did they shoot the same subjects under the same conditions using the same settings? If you don't understand why all of that matters, you shouldn't be posting reviews.
These "reviews" are user opinion pieces. Nothing more, nothing less **and** exactly what is common on the internet, from YouTube blogs to retail website feedback posts. If you are expecting high quality, purely objective reviews from common every day feedback posts - it is you who shouldn't be reading them. Every single person knows you take this type of review, the personal viewpoint, with a heathy grain of salt. Don't go holding this review(er) to some ridiculously high professional-level standard just because he is reviewing something you feel you have placed personal identification into.
So including sample photos that illustrate the image quality concerns is a "ridiculously high professional-level standard"? Ha, ha, ha..... That is the funniest thing I have read all day.

I didn't ask for any "professional level testing, just sample images. He obviously took them (or maybe not).
And has EVERY SINGLE REVIEW, on this site, posted photographic proof of the writer's comments along with the personal anecdotes of the equipment???

No?
Hence, my initial response to the thread (which received 12 likes):
IMO, review threads that discuss image quality should be ignored if they have no sample images with EXIF data. Just pointless.

Handling? Weight? UI issues? Fit of the camera features to your shooting style? All fine to include in a review without images.

But image quality? Include samples. It is pretty easy to screw up image quality with poor settings. There is also a wide variance on what people consider image quality issues. It is impossible to tell what is going on when a review rates the image quality as poor for a camera that so many people find acceptable.
I feel the same about any review of image quality, regardless of the opinion. It is just POINTLESS.

His response above was ridiculous. Your response of "Internet reviews suck so we should just accept them" was kind of sad.
Then it's YOU who is funny.
I try. But, I am consistent.
Get off your high horse. You took the review personally because how DARE someone say something negative about one of your fetishes, and you expect him to solidify his opinion without question.
Personally? LOL. That's two funny things.

I expect image quality reviews to have images....... how DARE me? LOL.
 
After reading pointless complaints and been offended in different ways, even after specifying several times that it is a great camera but is just not for me (not my cup of tea ), I decided to don't listen to these people anymore, reading and replying to them is such a waste of time, and I don't think I would ever write a review on this platform.

Thanks for the experience.
If you are unwilling to provide samples, then this is best for everyone.
 
I believe the images other people used for test the camera and write a review are produced by the same type of camera I used: the OM-D 5 m2.

Those people get paid for writing accurate reviews, I don't so I can not spend hours on writing a detailed review and take sample shots.
Did they shoot the same subjects under the same conditions using the same settings? If you don't understand why all of that matters, you shouldn't be posting reviews.
These "reviews" are user opinion pieces. Nothing more, nothing less **and** exactly what is common on the internet, from YouTube blogs to retail website feedback posts. If you are expecting high quality, purely objective reviews from common every day feedback posts - it is you who shouldn't be reading them. Every single person knows you take this type of review, the personal viewpoint, with a heathy grain of salt. Don't go holding this review(er) to some ridiculously high professional-level standard just because he is reviewing something you feel you have placed personal identification into.
So including sample photos that illustrate the image quality concerns is a "ridiculously high professional-level standard"? Ha, ha, ha..... That is the funniest thing I have read all day.

I didn't ask for any "professional level testing, just sample images. He obviously took them (or maybe not).
And has EVERY SINGLE REVIEW, on this site, posted photographic proof of the writer's comments along with the personal anecdotes of the equipment???

No?
Hence, my initial response to the thread (which received 12 likes):
Get off your high horse. You took the review personally because how DARE someone say something negative about one of your fetishes, and you expect him to solidify his opinion without question.
Personally? LOL. That's two funny things.

I expect image quality reviews to have images....... how DARE me? LOL.

rsmithgi, post: 61521538, member: 290716"]
FeDost, post: 61521538, member: 290716"]
After reading pointless complaints and been offended in different ways, even after specifying several times that it is a great camera but is just not for me (not my cup of tea ), I decided to don't listen to these people anymore, reading and replying to them is such a waste of time, and I don't think I would ever write a review on this platform.

Thanks for the experience.
If you are unwilling to provide samples, then this is best for everyone.
Seems you get paid from Olympus to argue with people on forum topics who have a bad opinion of their cameras, get a life, go out and shoot!

This is ridiculous!

[/QUOTE]
 
when dealing with Olympus fans ;-)

Seriously, don't take those replies too seriously.

Fans of every brand can be tribal, often vocal and emotional, rarely objective, quick to insult when somebody dare to say the silghtest critics or divergent opinion.

That's the game, and it's often entertaining (if it doesn't go off limits) ;-)
 
IMO, review threads that discuss image quality should be ignored if they have no sample images with EXIF data. Just pointless.

Handling? Weight? UI issues? Fit of the camera features to your shooting style? All fine to include in a review without images.

But image quality? Include samples. It is pretty easy to screw up image quality with poor settings. There is also a wide variance on what people consider image quality issues. It is impossible to tell what is going on when a review rates the image quality as poor for a camera that so many people find acceptable.
Unfortunately I don't have time and place to digging through all the pics I took to add some good examples, my bad. But there are plenty of examples online, on dpreview there is a great comparison tool and sample pictures.
How would samples of photos found online help illustrate the problems YOU are having with the camera?

No time to include samples? I'd suggest saving the time on the review also because it is a waste of everyone's time.
I believe the images other people used for test the camera and write a review are produced by the same type of camera I used: the OM-D 5 m2.

Those people get paid for writing accurate reviews, I don't so I can not spend hours on writing a detailed review and take sample shots.

You are not forced to read my review, anybody is so don't blame me, you are wasting your time even replying to this post...
So you are saying because you didn't get paid, so you will write inaccurate and false reviews? sounds like a good plan, hope you will get paid on your next review. :-D
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top