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.
 
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.
If I shoot images at the ISO of the images above and get poor results, I assume that the fault is my own since it is obvious the camera is capable of the images shown here.

Do you considered these "pretty bad" high ISO performance? If so, explain.

If not, explain why your images do not match the level of these.
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.
I highly suspect that the issues you were seeing were severe under exposure at high ISOs. If you are having to significantly raise the exposure in Lightroom, then you are underexposing your images. For higher ISOs, you should be exposing to the right and LOWERING the exposure in Lightroom. This would be the fault of the photographer.

This is why sample images are necessary. It is not possible to know why you were getting "pretty bad" high ISO performance when others are able to do just fine.
Man, you are annoying...

Here, your examples:

Before you tell me, I'm sure I did something wrong you are right, so please let's stop this.

Edit: I took this pic myself, I didn't take it from another review or images resource.
I think the images are self explanatory. If they were included in the original post, this would have been a very short thread.
Then why if I do the same thing with the Ricoh GR or the Fuji x100f this doesn't happen?
As I mentioned before according to DxoMark the EM 5.2 and Ricoh GR have virtually the same noise performance and dynamic range at higher ISOs. Since you do not have a comparison between the two that shows otherwise what DxoMark says stands.
Can I like the results of those cameras more than the one from Olympus OM-D 5.2 or should I ask the permission in this m4/3 group?

I might be a mediocre photographer but I'm free to buy and use whatever I want so if you don't agree with my review is your problem!
 
Ahem! I think we might be talking about the shadow on the cheek? There's quite a bit of noise there.

Hard to tell without the RAW but it looks like there might have been a small amount of latitude to ETTR without blowing out the shirt. Since it's white, a bit of that might be acceptable anyway.

High DR is always a challenge, maybe the OP is right?

I tried a little bit of PP and noise reduction helps.

Andrew
He was talking about the purple in the deep shadows. From his original post:
Recovering lights on dark images is terrible, once I started moving the selector on Lightroom I seen heavy purple fringing
Must be my eyesight - can't see purple fringing in the second (+60) shot. I wouldn't lift the deep shadows, but the face is noisy.

Andrew
 
Instead asking the OP to open a can of worm, download samples from the web and try yourself, you'll be better informed.
Pointless to get samples from the web to compare issues that he is having. That should be obvious.
Exactly the opposite. You can download what you asked here in your post above (and you deleted in this post, so I'll paste it for you) :
If you want to make that case, you'll need to include side-by-side examples taken at the same time. I won't hold my breath for that.
Now, I'm sure the OP doesn't have what you asked for (side by side pictures). But luckily, imagine resource provide RAW tor download. So I'll help you to make the comparaison, here's the links :

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/fuji-x100f/fuji-x100fA7.HTM

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/olympus-e-m5-ii/olympus-e-m5-iiA7.HTM

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/ricoh-gr-ii/ricoh-gr-iiA7.HTM

So please, proceed yourself and share the results if you want. Have fun.
Just trying to make sure I understand your point. If I buy a camera and take a series of picture while forgetting to remove the lens cap and post a review that says "this camera sucks, all the photos come out too dark", reviewing a different set of images will help how?
 
Ahem! I think we might be talking about the shadow on the cheek? There's quite a bit of noise there.

Hard to tell without the RAW but it looks like there might have been a small amount of latitude to ETTR without blowing out the shirt. Since it's white, a bit of that might be acceptable anyway.

High DR is always a challenge, maybe the OP is right?

I tried a little bit of PP and noise reduction helps.

Andrew
He was talking about the purple in the deep shadows. From his original post:
Recovering lights on dark images is terrible, once I started moving the selector on Lightroom I seen heavy purple fringing
Must be my eyesight - can't see purple fringing in the second (+60) shot. I wouldn't lift the deep shadows, but the face is noisy.

Andrew
The shadows in the back have a purple tint, especially the two trees (I think).
 
Ahem! I think we might be talking about the shadow on the cheek? There's quite a bit of noise there.

Hard to tell without the RAW but it looks like there might have been a small amount of latitude to ETTR without blowing out the shirt. Since it's white, a bit of that might be acceptable anyway.

High DR is always a challenge, maybe the OP is right?

I tried a little bit of PP and noise reduction helps.

Andrew
He was talking about the purple in the deep shadows. From his original post:
Recovering lights on dark images is terrible, once I started moving the selector on Lightroom I seen heavy purple fringing
Must be my eyesight - can't see purple fringing in the second (+60) shot. I wouldn't lift the deep shadows, but the face is noisy.

Andrew
The shadows in the back have a purple tint, especially the two trees (I think).
I do believe you're right.

Andrew
 
Instead asking the OP to open a can of worm, download samples from the web and try yourself, you'll be better informed.
Pointless to get samples from the web to compare issues that he is having. That should be obvious.
Exactly the opposite. You can download what you asked here in your post above (and you deleted in this post, so I'll paste it for you) :
If you want to make that case, you'll need to include side-by-side examples taken at the same time. I won't hold my breath for that.
Now, I'm sure the OP doesn't have what you asked for (side by side pictures). But luckily, imagine resource provide RAW tor download. So I'll help you to make the comparaison, here's the links :

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/fuji-x100f/fuji-x100fA7.HTM

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/olympus-e-m5-ii/olympus-e-m5-iiA7.HTM

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/ricoh-gr-ii/ricoh-gr-iiA7.HTM

So please, proceed yourself and share the results if you want. Have fun.
Just trying to make sure I understand your point. If I buy a camera and take a series of picture while forgetting to remove the lens cap and post a review that says "this camera sucks, all the photos come out too dark", reviewing a different set of images will help how?
Who did that? Not the OP, for sure.

But You asked for a comparaison, nobody else. So please proceed instead of trying to divert the point.

I'll help you again with the point : the op wasn't happy with shadows recovery of the em5 compared to its fuji and ricoh.

You supposed the OP had incorrect settings. He didn't.

You asked for a comparaison. I provided links.

Your turn to prove your point. Go ahead
 
Instead asking the OP to open a can of worm, download samples from the web and try yourself, you'll be better informed.
Pointless to get samples from the web to compare issues that he is having. That should be obvious.
Exactly the opposite. You can download what you asked here in your post above (and you deleted in this post, so I'll paste it for you) :
If you want to make that case, you'll need to include side-by-side examples taken at the same time. I won't hold my breath for that.
Now, I'm sure the OP doesn't have what you asked for (side by side pictures). But luckily, imagine resource provide RAW tor download. So I'll help you to make the comparaison, here's the links :

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/fuji-x100f/fuji-x100fA7.HTM

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/olympus-e-m5-ii/olympus-e-m5-iiA7.HTM

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/ricoh-gr-ii/ricoh-gr-iiA7.HTM

So please, proceed yourself and share the results if you want. Have fun.
Just trying to make sure I understand your point. If I buy a camera and take a series of picture while forgetting to remove the lens cap and post a review that says "this camera sucks, all the photos come out too dark", reviewing a different set of images will help how?
Who did that? Not the OP, for sure.
What makes you say he didn't do that?
But You asked for a comparaison, nobody else. So please proceed instead of trying to divert the point.

I'll help you again with the point : the op wasn't happy with shadows recovery of the em5 compared to its fuji and ricoh.

You supposed the OP had incorrect settings. He didn't.

You asked for a comparaison. I provided links.

Your turn to prove your point. Go ahead
Of course he had incorrect settings. The image was horribly under exposed.

I also included this in my first response:
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.
One or the other explains his complaint, take your pick. Either way, IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW WITHOUT HIS SAMPLE IMAGES.
 
Last edited:
Instead asking the OP to open a can of worm, download samples from the web and try yourself, you'll be better informed.
Pointless to get samples from the web to compare issues that he is having. That should be obvious.
Exactly the opposite. You can download what you asked here in your post above (and you deleted in this post, so I'll paste it for you) :
If you want to make that case, you'll need to include side-by-side examples taken at the same time. I won't hold my breath for that.
Now, I'm sure the OP doesn't have what you asked for (side by side pictures). But luckily, imagine resource provide RAW tor download. So I'll help you to make the comparaison, here's the links :

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/fuji-x100f/fuji-x100fA7.HTM

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/olympus-e-m5-ii/olympus-e-m5-iiA7.HTM

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/ricoh-gr-ii/ricoh-gr-iiA7.HTM

So please, proceed yourself and share the results if you want. Have fun.
Just trying to make sure I understand your point. If I buy a camera and take a series of picture while forgetting to remove the lens cap and post a review that says "this camera sucks, all the photos come out too dark", reviewing a different set of images will help how?
Who did that? Not the OP, for sure.

But You asked for a comparaison, nobody else. So please proceed instead of trying to divert the point.

I'll help you again with the point : the op wasn't happy with shadows recovery of the em5 compared to its fuji and ricoh.

You supposed the OP had incorrect settings. He didn't.

You asked for a comparaison. I provided links.

Your turn to prove your point. Go ahead
Of course he had incorrect settings. The exposure was horribly under exposed.
Absolutely not.

And it doesn't answer the point : do the em5 has the same shadow recovery ability than the fuji and the ricoh.

Last call : please proceed, images worth 1000 words
 
Instead asking the OP to open a can of worm, download samples from the web and try yourself, you'll be better informed.
Pointless to get samples from the web to compare issues that he is having. That should be obvious.
Exactly the opposite. You can download what you asked here in your post above (and you deleted in this post, so I'll paste it for you) :
If you want to make that case, you'll need to include side-by-side examples taken at the same time. I won't hold my breath for that.
Now, I'm sure the OP doesn't have what you asked for (side by side pictures). But luckily, imagine resource provide RAW tor download. So I'll help you to make the comparaison, here's the links :

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/fuji-x100f/fuji-x100fA7.HTM

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/olympus-e-m5-ii/olympus-e-m5-iiA7.HTM

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/ricoh-gr-ii/ricoh-gr-iiA7.HTM

So please, proceed yourself and share the results if you want. Have fun.
Just trying to make sure I understand your point. If I buy a camera and take a series of picture while forgetting to remove the lens cap and post a review that says "this camera sucks, all the photos come out too dark", reviewing a different set of images will help how?
Who did that? Not the OP, for sure.

But You asked for a comparaison, nobody else. So please proceed instead of trying to divert the point.

I'll help you again with the point : the op wasn't happy with shadows recovery of the em5 compared to its fuji and ricoh.

You supposed the OP had incorrect settings. He didn't.

You asked for a comparaison. I provided links.

Your turn to prove your point. Go ahead
Of course he had incorrect settings. The exposure was horribly under exposed.
Absolutely not.
Absolutely yes.
And it doesn't answer the point : do the em5 has the same shadow recovery ability than the fuji and the ricoh.
That wasn't the point. His initial post mention neither of the two cameras you linked. His initial post only mentioned the GR, not the GR II.

Also, the Image Review images are properly exposed.

Furthermore, the Image Review articles include samples with and without noise reduction. Which ones should I look at. NOBODY KNOWS. Why? Because the OP didn't include that information.
Last call : please proceed, images worth 1000 words
Please tell me how you know he didn't take the images with his lens cap on.
 
Last edited:
Instead asking the OP to open a can of worm, download samples from the web and try yourself, you'll be better informed.
Pointless to get samples from the web to compare issues that he is having. That should be obvious.
Exactly the opposite. You can download what you asked here in your post above (and you deleted in this post, so I'll paste it for you) :
If you want to make that case, you'll need to include side-by-side examples taken at the same time. I won't hold my breath for that.
Now, I'm sure the OP doesn't have what you asked for (side by side pictures). But luckily, imagine resource provide RAW tor download. So I'll help you to make the comparaison, here's the links :

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/fuji-x100f/fuji-x100fA7.HTM

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/olympus-e-m5-ii/olympus-e-m5-iiA7.HTM

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/ricoh-gr-ii/ricoh-gr-iiA7.HTM

So please, proceed yourself and share the results if you want. Have fun.
Just trying to make sure I understand your point. If I buy a camera and take a series of picture while forgetting to remove the lens cap and post a review that says "this camera sucks, all the photos come out too dark", reviewing a different set of images will help how?
Who did that? Not the OP, for sure.

But You asked for a comparaison, nobody else. So please proceed instead of trying to divert the point.

I'll help you again with the point : the op wasn't happy with shadows recovery of the em5 compared to its fuji and ricoh.

You supposed the OP had incorrect settings. He didn't.

You asked for a comparaison. I provided links.

Your turn to prove your point. Go ahead
Of course he had incorrect settings. The exposure was horribly under exposed.
Absolutely not.
Absolutely yes.
And it doesn't answer the point : do the em5 has the same shadow recovery ability than the fuji and the ricoh.
That wasn't the point. His initial post mention neither of the two cameras you linked. His initial post only mentioned the GR, not the GR II.

Also, the Image Review images are properly exposed.

Furthermore, the Image Review articles include samples with and without noise reduction. Which ones should I look at. NOBODY KNOWS. Why? Because the OP didn't include that information.
Last call : please proceed, images worth 1000 words
Please tell me how you know he didn't take the images with his lens cap on.
Man, are you for real? You keep arguing since the past 24 hours... get some sleep and chill. I really don't understand why you are doing that. Is just a damn 3d about a review that you don't like. Just let it go, I think we all understood you are a grandmaster Jedi of photographic tools.
 
Instead asking the OP to open a can of worm, download samples from the web and try yourself, you'll be better informed.
Pointless to get samples from the web to compare issues that he is having. That should be obvious.
Exactly the opposite. You can download what you asked here in your post above (and you deleted in this post, so I'll paste it for you) :
If you want to make that case, you'll need to include side-by-side examples taken at the same time. I won't hold my breath for that.
Now, I'm sure the OP doesn't have what you asked for (side by side pictures). But luckily, imagine resource provide RAW tor download. So I'll help you to make the comparaison, here's the links :

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/fuji-x100f/fuji-x100fA7.HTM

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/olympus-e-m5-ii/olympus-e-m5-iiA7.HTM

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/ricoh-gr-ii/ricoh-gr-iiA7.HTM

So please, proceed yourself and share the results if you want. Have fun.
Just trying to make sure I understand your point. If I buy a camera and take a series of picture while forgetting to remove the lens cap and post a review that says "this camera sucks, all the photos come out too dark", reviewing a different set of images will help how?
Who did that? Not the OP, for sure.

But You asked for a comparaison, nobody else. So please proceed instead of trying to divert the point.

I'll help you again with the point : the op wasn't happy with shadows recovery of the em5 compared to its fuji and ricoh.

You supposed the OP had incorrect settings. He didn't.

You asked for a comparaison. I provided links.

Your turn to prove your point. Go ahead
Of course he had incorrect settings. The exposure was horribly under exposed.
Absolutely not.
Absolutely yes.
And it doesn't answer the point : do the em5 has the same shadow recovery ability than the fuji and the ricoh.
That wasn't the point. His initial post mention neither of the two cameras you linked. His initial post only mentioned the GR, not the GR II.

Also, the Image Review images are properly exposed.

Furthermore, the Image Review articles include samples with and without noise reduction. Which ones should I look at. NOBODY KNOWS. Why? Because the OP didn't include that information.
Last call : please proceed, images worth 1000 words
Please tell me how you know he didn't take the images with his lens cap on.
You're right, of course. Bye
 
Instead asking the OP to open a can of worm, download samples from the web and try yourself, you'll be better informed.
Pointless to get samples from the web to compare issues that he is having. That should be obvious.
Exactly the opposite. You can download what you asked here in your post above (and you deleted in this post, so I'll paste it for you) :
If you want to make that case, you'll need to include side-by-side examples taken at the same time. I won't hold my breath for that.
Now, I'm sure the OP doesn't have what you asked for (side by side pictures). But luckily, imagine resource provide RAW tor download. So I'll help you to make the comparaison, here's the links :

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/fuji-x100f/fuji-x100fA7.HTM

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/olympus-e-m5-ii/olympus-e-m5-iiA7.HTM

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/ricoh-gr-ii/ricoh-gr-iiA7.HTM

So please, proceed yourself and share the results if you want. Have fun.
Just trying to make sure I understand your point. If I buy a camera and take a series of picture while forgetting to remove the lens cap and post a review that says "this camera sucks, all the photos come out too dark", reviewing a different set of images will help how?
Who did that? Not the OP, for sure.

But You asked for a comparaison, nobody else. So please proceed instead of trying to divert the point.

I'll help you again with the point : the op wasn't happy with shadows recovery of the em5 compared to its fuji and ricoh.

You supposed the OP had incorrect settings. He didn't.

You asked for a comparaison. I provided links.

Your turn to prove your point. Go ahead
Of course he had incorrect settings. The exposure was horribly under exposed.
Absolutely not.
Absolutely yes.
And it doesn't answer the point : do the em5 has the same shadow recovery ability than the fuji and the ricoh.
That wasn't the point. His initial post mention neither of the two cameras you linked. His initial post only mentioned the GR, not the GR II.

Also, the Image Review images are properly exposed.

Furthermore, the Image Review articles include samples with and without noise reduction. Which ones should I look at. NOBODY KNOWS. Why? Because the OP didn't include that information.
Last call : please proceed, images worth 1000 words
Please tell me how you know he didn't take the images with his lens cap on.
Man, are you for real? You keep arguing since the past 24 hours... get some sleep and chill. I really don't understand why you are doing that. Is just a damn 3d about a review that you don't like. Just let it go, I think we all understood you are a grandmaster Jedi of photographic tools.
Include samples next time.
 
Instead asking the OP to open a can of worm, download samples from the web and try yourself, you'll be better informed.
Pointless to get samples from the web to compare issues that he is having. That should be obvious.
Exactly the opposite. You can download what you asked here in your post above (and you deleted in this post, so I'll paste it for you) :
If you want to make that case, you'll need to include side-by-side examples taken at the same time. I won't hold my breath for that.
Now, I'm sure the OP doesn't have what you asked for (side by side pictures). But luckily, imagine resource provide RAW tor download. So I'll help you to make the comparaison, here's the links :

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/fuji-x100f/fuji-x100fA7.HTM

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/olympus-e-m5-ii/olympus-e-m5-iiA7.HTM

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/ricoh-gr-ii/ricoh-gr-iiA7.HTM

So please, proceed yourself and share the results if you want. Have fun.
Just trying to make sure I understand your point. If I buy a camera and take a series of picture while forgetting to remove the lens cap and post a review that says "this camera sucks, all the photos come out too dark", reviewing a different set of images will help how?
Who did that? Not the OP, for sure.

But You asked for a comparaison, nobody else. So please proceed instead of trying to divert the point.

I'll help you again with the point : the op wasn't happy with shadows recovery of the em5 compared to its fuji and ricoh.

You supposed the OP had incorrect settings. He didn't.

You asked for a comparaison. I provided links.

Your turn to prove your point. Go ahead
Of course he had incorrect settings. The exposure was horribly under exposed.
Absolutely not.
Absolutely yes.
And it doesn't answer the point : do the em5 has the same shadow recovery ability than the fuji and the ricoh.
That wasn't the point. His initial post mention neither of the two cameras you linked. His initial post only mentioned the GR, not the GR II.

Also, the Image Review images are properly exposed.

Furthermore, the Image Review articles include samples with and without noise reduction. Which ones should I look at. NOBODY KNOWS. Why? Because the OP didn't include that information.
Last call : please proceed, images worth 1000 words
Please tell me how you know he didn't take the images with his lens cap on.
You're right, of course. Bye
Thank you. Please include samples with image quality reviews. Simple request that you and the OP wanted to dance around.
 
No matter how you slice it, if you are shooting RAW (which I suspect you are not), the EM5ii + 17mm F1.8 will give you better low light performance than the Ricoh GR with its F2.8 lens. If you shot something at ISO 1600 on the m43's camera, you would have to shoot it at 3200 with the Ricoh:


I call bull on this.
 
Of course, it is entirely possible that another camera make/model would suit you better, for your own personal requirements.

But this does not reflect badly on the Olympus EM5 ii, because it is a brilliant camera, one of the best ever built in its class. The build quality of it is superb, the features packed into it are amazing, and its image quality is excellent.

Plus, it has access to one of the best lens eco systems available. Certainly the widest choice of lenses available in mirrorless. The icing on the cake is that the EM5 ii, with the right lenses is highly portable, considering its heavyweight capabilities.

No Micro 43 camera is (or was ever claimed to be) a low-light king...but one only has to check out the the images its sensor produces, to see its IQ capability. National Geographic photographers have used this sensor.

But if it's not for you, "not your cup of tea," as you put it, that's fine. We live in a marketplace full of different camera choices, and you can trade it in for a different model.

I'm sure that the new owner of your EM5 ii will appreciate what a fantastic camera that he/she has, and will produce great images with it.
Indeed is a great camera, I never say it is bad and honestly I don't understand why so many people here say that I think that so to make it clear:
Wel, you actually said that, by giving it pretty bad scores, well below community average. It is your opinion, for sure, so you don't have to apologize for saying it's pretty bad.
 
Of course, it is entirely possible that another camera make/model would suit you better, for your own personal requirements.

But this does not reflect badly on the Olympus EM5 ii, because it is a brilliant camera, one of the best ever built in its class. The build quality of it is superb, the features packed into it are amazing, and its image quality is excellent.

Plus, it has access to one of the best lens eco systems available. Certainly the widest choice of lenses available in mirrorless. The icing on the cake is that the EM5 ii, with the right lenses is highly portable, considering its heavyweight capabilities.

No Micro 43 camera is (or was ever claimed to be) a low-light king...but one only has to check out the the images its sensor produces, to see its IQ capability. National Geographic photographers have used this sensor.

But if it's not for you, "not your cup of tea," as you put it, that's fine. We live in a marketplace full of different camera choices, and you can trade it in for a different model.

I'm sure that the new owner of your EM5 ii will appreciate what a fantastic camera that he/she has, and will produce great images with it.
Indeed is a great camera, I never say it is bad and honestly I don't understand why so many people here say that I think that so to make it clear:
Wel, you actually said that, by giving it pretty bad scores, well below community average. It is your opinion, for sure, so you don't have to apologize for saying it's pretty bad.
"Is not for me" doesn't mean is bad for everybody else in fact this is a good example because, as you could see, the community average is quite higher.
 
Indeed many camera's for different reason were not my cup of tea and it is nice to have choice. It is also nice that people can post their reviews over here no matter if they are positive, neutral or negative.

EM5-2 in my view is a cam that should have been replaced prior to 2018. The sensor is dated, but not far behind the EM1.2. But the difference is tangible. AF isreally behind the times mostly because it is just CDAF and not the Panasonic kind (DFD) that is very good at C-AF nowadays.
But otoh some things you do not like cannot be changed in anyway other than Multi aspect ratio sensors which only Panasonic occassionally has used. this would give you true 3:2 aspect ratio

I am sure you'll find refuge in other systems like the few you already used. As Always it is good to have choice!
 
Of course, it is entirely possible that another camera make/model would suit you better, for your own personal requirements.

But this does not reflect badly on the Olympus EM5 ii, because it is a brilliant camera, one of the best ever built in its class. The build quality of it is superb, the features packed into it are amazing, and its image quality is excellent.

Plus, it has access to one of the best lens eco systems available. Certainly the widest choice of lenses available in mirrorless. The icing on the cake is that the EM5 ii, with the right lenses is highly portable, considering its heavyweight capabilities.

No Micro 43 camera is (or was ever claimed to be) a low-light king...but one only has to check out the the images its sensor produces, to see its IQ capability. National Geographic photographers have used this sensor.

But if it's not for you, "not your cup of tea," as you put it, that's fine. We live in a marketplace full of different camera choices, and you can trade it in for a different model.

I'm sure that the new owner of your EM5 ii will appreciate what a fantastic camera that he/she has, and will produce great images with it.
Indeed is a great camera, I never say it is bad and honestly I don't understand why so many people here say that I think that so to make it clear:

"The Olympus OM-D M5 m2 is a GREAT camera but is not for me"
After looking at your so called "review" and conclusions, I totally agree to your last statement "The Olympus OM-D M5 m2 is a GREAT camera but is not for you"

Indeed, the M5 is a great camera but as every other camera, it needs a photographer behind it and judging from what I saw in your galleries, you are the one who is not made for this camera, but as always, it is easier to blame the tool than questioning ourselves.

Moti
Thank you for your compliments.

So you are actually saying that I'm a mediocre photographer because we don't have the same opinion about this camera?

Is nice to see how some people react childishly when you touch their toys.
No. What he says (he always says that if you have been following the forum for a while - it's one of his well known opinions) is that without any photographs posted (his mention of a non-existent gallery is a good hint), you give very little evidence of how you shoot, what you shoot, or even that you shoot at all. Hence the review should be read with that in mind.
 
Of course, it is entirely possible that another camera make/model would suit you better, for your own personal requirements.

But this does not reflect badly on the Olympus EM5 ii, because it is a brilliant camera, one of the best ever built in its class. The build quality of it is superb, the features packed into it are amazing, and its image quality is excellent.

Plus, it has access to one of the best lens eco systems available. Certainly the widest choice of lenses available in mirrorless. The icing on the cake is that the EM5 ii, with the right lenses is highly portable, considering its heavyweight capabilities.

No Micro 43 camera is (or was ever claimed to be) a low-light king...but one only has to check out the the images its sensor produces, to see its IQ capability. National Geographic photographers have used this sensor.

But if it's not for you, "not your cup of tea," as you put it, that's fine. We live in a marketplace full of different camera choices, and you can trade it in for a different model.

I'm sure that the new owner of your EM5 ii will appreciate what a fantastic camera that he/she has, and will produce great images with it.
Indeed is a great camera, I never say it is bad and honestly I don't understand why so many people here say that I think that so to make it clear:

"The Olympus OM-D M5 m2 is a GREAT camera but is not for me"
After looking at your so called "review" and conclusions, I totally agree to your last statement "The Olympus OM-D M5 m2 is a GREAT camera but is not for you"

Indeed, the M5 is a great camera but as every other camera, it needs a photographer behind it and judging from what I saw in your galleries, you are the one who is not made for this camera, but as always, it is easier to blame the tool than questioning ourselves.

Moti
Thank you for your compliments.

So you are actually saying that I'm a mediocre photographer because we don't have the same opinion about this camera?

Is nice to see how some people react childishly when you touch their toys.
No. What he says (he always says that if you have been following the forum for a while - it's one of his well known opinions) is that without any photographs posted (his mention of a non-existent gallery is a good hint), you give very little evidence of how you shoot, what you shoot, or even that you shoot at all. Hence the review should be read with that in mind.
If both of you wouldwjust look more carefully, in my profile you can find the link at my instagrIn account with some pics taken by me.
 
You’re missing the point. A review should contain images taken with the camera being reviewed. Some nice snaps on Instagram, but what were they taken with? Could be an iPhone... specific gear and specific examples are more of interest to this community than general comments without evidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top