E-M1 vs. A7II Thoughts

A bit of backstory here so skip to the comparison if desired. I recently picked up an E-M1 to see if I would like the m43 system. The E-M1 is well respected and still considered the flagship by many. Some of you may have seen my other thread where I've been talking about my impulsive buying and selling cameras habit. There are no camera stores within several hours of me that stock more than the usual Canikon (and some Sony) gear so I either need to rent or buy to test out new gear. I typically prefer to buy gear, use it for a short period, then sell it at a slight loss instead of renting. This way there is no time constraint and it costs me about the same in the end. I had an A6000 for all of 2015 that I shot side-by-side with my girlfriend's A7II. When the A6300 was announced I sold the A6000 and purchased the A6300. I did not see enough of an improvement over the A6000 (I really wanted IBIS) and ended up returning it. I then used an RX100IV for the next few months and eventually sold that off to get back into an ILC system. I tried out the Olympus E-PL6 and fell in love with the lens size and quality, but the camera itself wasn't enjoyable to use (no EVF, lack of controls, poor LCD, etc.)

So I've had the E-M1 for about two days and got to compare it to the A7II today. I tested the A7II with the Sony Zeiss 55mm, the 28-70mm, and an adapted Canon 55-250mm STM (in APS-C mode). I tested the E-M1 with the Olympus 45mm f1.8, 14-42mm R ii, and 40-150mm f4-5.6. I also used the remote camera apps extensively. Here are my thoughts about the E-M1:

The good:

• Great build quality, dials feel much better than the A7II. Many more controls. Grip is similar on both.
• Great EVF and screen. I didn't realize how poor the A7II's is until I used it side-by-side against the E-M1.
• AF-S was fast and accurate
• Touch screen works well although I didn't find myself using it much
• IBIS works fantastic. Good for 4-5 stops
• The 45mm and 40-150mm are excellent for the size. The 14-42mm is so-so (as is the Sony 28-70mm)
• The colors out of camera (RAW in LR) were slightly better than the Sony for skintones and foliage. The A7II still makes things look too yellow for my taste.
• Burst is a respectable 10fps
• The 4/3 aspect ratio is interesting to work with. I think I actually like it for portraits but not for landscapes

The bad:

• Menus are about as poor as Sony. I felt that I preferred the Sony menus but probably only because I'm so used to them.
• I hated how when reviewing an image and placing your eye to the EVF the camera exits playback mode. Perhaps there is a setting I missed for this.
• It appears there is some noise/loss of detail even at base ISO (200).
• The remote camera function is better in some ways but has a major flaw. There is no face detect when using the remote app as there is with the A7II and AF works terrible in certain circumstances. For example, I could not achieve focus with the 40-150mm fully zoomed. I continuously pressed on different parts of my face and it would focus on the foliage behind me. I couldn't get a single sharp shot in this situation. Very disappointing and a bit of a dealbreaker in itself since I use this function all the time with my girlfriend for better quality "selfies". The A7II, even with an adapted Canon 55-250mm STM achieved perfect focus every time via face detect.
• The "whirring" IBIS noise is super annoying. I've never experienced a noise like this in a camera except for some noisy AF in certain lenses. 
• The IQ on the A7II turned out substantially better in my testing, even using crop mode with the cheap Canon 55-250mm STM fully zoomed. I thought the excellent Olympus lenses would balance this out but that wasn't the case. I believed the 40-150mm was sharper when I first tested it but it appears the 55-250mm still has an advantage. Both are excellent lenses for the money. The 55mm also killed the 45mm in IQ and shallow DOF (as expected). The 45mm still did excellent, especially when stopped down to f2.2 but the Zony was razor sharp wide-open, and sharper at f1.8 than the 45mm was at f2.2. I think the 45mm is still much sharper than my old Sony E-mount f1.8 OSS lens wide open so still impressive. Kit lenses were about equally mediocre.
• The dynamic range of the Sony sensor is significantly better (also expected). Very usable shots even when pulling up shadows. The E-M1 shadows show heavy noise when pulled too much and it loses highlight data much easier.
• The high ISO performance of the E-M1 is disappointing. I didn't compare it side-by-side to the Sony but even ISO 3200 is almost unusable for me. It seems at least a stop worse than my old A6000, two stops worse than the A6300, and maybe even slightly more than two stops compared to the A7II. It's about on par with my RX100IV which is disappointing to say the least.
• I didn't compare tracking side-by-side but the few tests I did were disappointing tracking slow moving subjects (cats). I may need to try some different AF settings. I use C-AF and C-AF tracking.

Overall I love the camera but I think the sensor and AF may be too limiting for the photography I do. Even though it was compared to the much more expensive A7II in these tests, I think even my old A6000 would beat it in many areas at almost half the cost. I think if the E-M2 releases with the rumored new sensor that may be an almost perfect camera. Not sure if I will be keeping the E-M1 long term. I originally planned to get a two format kit (FF and m43) but now I'm not really sure if m43 would see much use until they make some improvements. Either way I am happy with the decision and glad I finally got to see what all the hype is about. Great camera with just a few flaws

SonyArtisan wrote:

A bit of backstory here so skip to the comparison if desired. I recently picked up an E-M1 to see if I would like the m43 system. The E-M1 is well respected and still considered the flagship by many. Some of you may have seen my other thread where I've been talking about my impulsive buying and selling cameras habit. There are no camera stores within several hours of me that stock more than the usual Canikon (and some Sony) gear so I either need to rent or buy to test out new gear. I typically prefer to buy gear, use it for a short period, then sell it at a slight loss instead of renting. This way there is no time constraint and it costs me about the same in the end. I had an A6000 for all of 2015 that I shot side-by-side with my girlfriend's A7II. When the A6300 was announced I sold the A6000 and purchased the A6300. I did not see enough of an improvement over the A6000 (I really wanted IBIS) and ended up returning it. I then used an RX100IV for the next few months and eventually sold that off to get back into an ILC system. I tried out the Olympus E-PL6 and fell in love with the lens size and quality, but the camera itself wasn't enjoyable to use (no EVF, lack of controls, poor LCD, etc.)

So I've had the E-M1 for about two days and got to compare it to the A7II today. I tested the A7II with the Sony Zeiss 55mm, the 28-70mm, and an adapted Canon 55-250mm STM (in APS-C mode). I tested the E-M1 with the Olympus 45mm f1.8, 14-42mm R ii, and 40-150mm f4-5.6. I also used the remote camera apps extensively. Here are my thoughts about the E-M1:

In 2 days, wow I would not assess a camera until I used it extensively.

The good:

• Great build quality, dials feel much better than the A7II. Many more controls. Grip is similar on both.
• Great EVF and screen. I didn't realize how poor the A7II's is until I used it side-by-side against the E-M1.
• AF-S was fast and accurate
• Touch screen works well although I didn't find myself using it much
• IBIS works fantastic. Good for 4-5 stops
• The 45mm and 40-150mm are excellent for the size. The 14-42mm is so-so (as is the Sony 28-70mm)
• The colors out of camera (RAW in LR) were slightly better than the Sony for skintones and foliage. The A7II still makes things look too yellow for my taste.
• Burst is a respectable 10fps
• The 4/3 aspect ratio is interesting to work with. I think I actually like it for portraits but not for landscapes

The bad:

• Menus are about as poor as Sony. I felt that I preferred the Sony menus but probably only because I'm so used to them.

Again, two days to get used to / assess the menus?

• I hated how when reviewing an image and placing your eye to the EVF the camera exits playback mode. Perhaps there is a setting I missed for this.

You need to go to Rec View and turn it off this playback mode. I will let you find it so you get to know the camera better.

• It appears there is some noise/loss of detail even at base ISO (200).
• The remote camera function is better in some ways but has a major flaw. There is no face detect when using the remote app as there is with the A7II and AF works terrible in certain circumstances. For example, I could not achieve focus with the 40-150mm fully zoomed. I continuously pressed on different parts of my face and it would focus on the foliage behind me. I couldn't get a single sharp shot in this situation. Very disappointing and a bit of a dealbreaker in itself since I use this function all the time with my girlfriend for better quality "selfies". The A7II, even with an adapted Canon 55-250mm STM achieved perfect focus every time via face detect.

For selfies! Wow that says it all.

• The "whirring" IBIS noise is super annoying. I've never experienced a noise like this in a camera except for some noisy AF in certain lenses.

Easy to get used to and ignore.

• The IQ on the A7II turned out substantially better in my testing, even using crop mode with the cheap Canon 55-250mm STM fully zoomed. I thought the excellent Olympus lenses would balance this out but that wasn't the case. I believed the 40-150mm was sharper when I first tested it but it appears the 55-250mm still has an advantage. Both are excellent lenses for the money. The 55mm also killed the 45mm in IQ and shallow DOF (as expected). The 45mm still did excellent, especially when stopped down to f2.2 but the Zony was razor sharp wide-open, and sharper at f1.8 than the 45mm was at f2.2. I think the 45mm is still much sharper than my old Sony E-mount f1.8 OSS lens wide open so still impressive. Kit lenses were about equally mediocre.

Comparing a FF 42 megapixel camera against a m4/3 16 megapixel camera is not a fair comparison.

• The dynamic range of the Sony sensor is significantly better (also expected). Very usable shots even when pulling up shadows. The E-M1 shadows show heavy noise when pulled too much and it loses highlight data much easier.

As above.

• The high ISO performance of the E-M1 is disappointing. I didn't compare it side-by-side to the Sony but even ISO 3200 is almost unusable for me. It seems at least a stop worse than my old A6000, two stops worse than the A6300, and maybe even slightly more than two stops compared to the A7II. It's about on par with my RX100IV which is disappointing to say the least.

If you had researched the camera better you would have known its high ISO limitations.

But according to Imaging Resources it has "very good high ISO performance for its class."

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/olympus-e-m1/olympus-e-m1A5.HTM

• I didn't compare tracking side-by-side but the few tests I did were disappointing tracking slow moving subjects (cats). I may need to try some different AF settings. I use C-AF and C-AF tracking.

You need to get to know the camera better and use certain settings to deliver better C-AF performance, Most find the C-AF good but the C-AF + tracking not reliable.

Plenty of good exponents of BIFs on this forum using the E-M1.

Overall I love the camera but I think the sensor and AF may be too limiting for the photography I do. Even though it was compared to the much more expensive A7II in these tests, I think even my old A6000 would beat it in many areas at almost half the cost. I think if the E-M2 releases with the rumored new sensor that may be an almost perfect camera. Not sure if I will be keeping the E-M1 long term. I originally planned to get a two format kit (FF and m43) but now I'm not really sure if m43 would see much use until they make some improvements. Either way I am happy with the decision and glad I finally got to see what all the hype is about. Great camera with just a few flaws

Just a few eh? Clearly m4/3 is not for you, you need to move on and get the latest and greatest DSLR.

-- hide signature --

www.flickr.com/photos/sonyartisan/

SonyArtisan wrote:

Overall I love the camera but I think the sensor and AF may be too limiting for the photography I do. Even though it was compared to the much more expensive A7II in these tests, I think even my old A6000 would beat it in many areas at almost half the cost. I think if the E-M2 releases with the rumored new sensor that may be an almost perfect camera.

While one can not say with absolute certainty, the sensor used in the EM1 markII is probably the same one used in the Pen F and the GX8. If so then it's a known quantity, it offers a resolution boost (16MP vs 20 MP) with subtle IQ improvements. If you didn't think your EM1 was good enough for your type of photography, it's unlikely to change with the new EM1 successor. Sensors usually come from Sony, BTW.

So assuming this is the case, where does EM1 mark II have real improvements? It's rumored to be everywhere else around the sensor, things that Olympus can either engineer themselves or buy from other manufacturers. Oly plays catch up and finally delivers 4K. They finally rectify the glaring omission of two card slot. You like the EVF on the old EM1? They've upgraded it. You think the fps is already good? Particular attention was given to this area to press that advantage and upgrade the AF. IBIS and shutter also have to be improved to deliver the promise of some sort of hand-held, hi-res feature (a proof of concept available in rough form in cameras released after the EM1). There are also some mysterious new features that are more software-based than hardware, no one knows what they are at this point.

SonyArtisan wrote:

• The high ISO performance of the E-M1 is disappointing. I didn't compare it side-by-side to the Sony but even ISO 3200 is almost unusable for me. It seems at least a stop worse than my old A6000, two stops worse than the A6300, and maybe even slightly more than two stops compared to the A7II. It's about on par with my RX100IV which is disappointing to say the least.

I have both the E-M10 and the A7 II - They each have their own pros and cons - however on the ISO point above, it's important to note that where you are constrained by needing depth of field (e.g. shooting more than one person indoors), then you're limited to using two stops more ISO on the A7 II (e.g. 1600 of MFT, 6400 on A7 II). In these cases, the MFT is significantly better. I also find the IBIS on MFT to be better as well (presumably due to it being easier to stabilise a smaller sensor), which increases the MFT's lead here.

My conclusion from your comparison is that the EM-1 is superior from most aspects except for resolution and high ISO performance. That's an amazingly good result, remembering that you compare a 16 MP and a 42 MP camera. The only advantages of the A7II are directly related to the sensor resolution and size and not much else. The negative things you list seems to me being mostly related to only a short experience of the EM-1 which of course is very understandable. It takes some time to learn how to set and use an Olympus camera. What many refer to as a complicated menu reflects that the possibilities to individual settings are enormous and it's easy to get wrong if you don't take your time diving into it. Have fun!

Helen wrote:

MatsP wrote:

My conclusion from your comparison is that the EM-1 is superior from most aspects except for resolution and high ISO performance. That's an amazingly good result, remembering that you compare a 16 MP and a 42 MP camera. The only advantages of the A7II are directly related to the sensor resolution and size and not much else. The negative things you list seems to me being mostly related to only a short experience of the EM-1 which of course is very understandable. It takes some time to learn how to set and use an Olympus camera. What many refer to as a complicated menu reflects that the possibilities to individual settings are enormous and it's easy to get wrong if you don't take your time diving into it. Have fun!

To be fair, the OP seems to be referring to the A7II, a 24 MP camera, rather than the A7RII.

He is indeed. But there can still be quite a difference between the 16MP and 24MP, especially with the right glass. Something like a Sigma ART 35mm at optimal aperture delivers a level of sharpness at 24MP you just can't match with 16MP M43.

Conversely, if you stick to some Nikon G lenses wide open at 24MP, it seems all fuzzy and wasted MP compared to good, sharp m43 glass like the Zuiko 75mm at 16MP.

That's my experience anyway.

zxaar wrote:

MatsP wrote:

My conclusion from your comparison is that the EM-1 is superior from most aspects except for resolution and high ISO performance.

And dynamic range too.

You are right what he is saying that sony is significantly better that making photos the thing for which one buys camera.

I take it that for you the photo aspect of camera is not so important but for op it seems tk be a big factor.

But see, a lot of things happen before you press shutter button, things that determine if you get the shot you want or not, things that make you want to take the shot in the first place.

Otherwise, might as well have a cardboard box with a sensor inside. It's all that matters apparently.

SonyArtisan wrote:

A bit of backstory here so skip to the comparison if desired. I recently picked up an E-M1 to see if I would like the m43 system. The E-M1 is well respected and still considered the flagship by many. Some of you may have seen my other thread where I've been talking about my impulsive buying and selling cameras habit. There are no camera stores within several hours of me that stock more than the usual Canikon (and some Sony) gear so I either need to rent or buy to test out new gear. I typically prefer to buy gear, use it for a short period, then sell it at a slight loss instead of renting. This way there is no time constraint and it costs me about the same in the end. I had an A6000 for all of 2015 that I shot side-by-side with my girlfriend's A7II. When the A6300 was announced I sold the A6000 and purchased the A6300. I did not see enough of an improvement over the A6000 (I really wanted IBIS) and ended up returning it. I then used an RX100IV for the next few months and eventually sold that off to get back into an ILC system. I tried out the Olympus E-PL6 and fell in love with the lens size and quality, but the camera itself wasn't enjoyable to use (no EVF, lack of controls, poor LCD, etc.)

So I've had the E-M1 for about two days and got to compare it to the A7II today. I tested the A7II with the Sony Zeiss 55mm, the 28-70mm, and an adapted Canon 55-250mm STM (in APS-C mode). I tested the E-M1 with the Olympus 45mm f1.8, 14-42mm R ii, and 40-150mm f4-5.6. I also used the remote camera apps extensively. Here are my thoughts about the E-M1:

The good:

• Great build quality, dials feel much better than the A7II. Many more controls. Grip is similar on both.
• Great EVF and screen. I didn't realize how poor the A7II's is until I used it side-by-side against the E-M1.
• AF-S was fast and accurate
• Touch screen works well although I didn't find myself using it much
• IBIS works fantastic. Good for 4-5 stops
• The 45mm and 40-150mm are excellent for the size. The 14-42mm is so-so (as is the Sony 28-70mm)
• The colors out of camera (RAW in LR) were slightly better than the Sony for skintones and foliage. The A7II still makes things look too yellow for my taste.
• Burst is a respectable 10fps
• The 4/3 aspect ratio is interesting to work with. I think I actually like it for portraits but not for landscapes

The bad:

• Menus are about as poor as Sony. I felt that I preferred the Sony menus but probably only because I'm so used to them.

Most reviews I've read indicate that Panasonic's menus are more user-friendly than either Olympus' or Sony's.

• I hated how when reviewing an image and placing your eye to the EVF the camera exits playback mode. Perhaps there is a setting I missed for this.

This does not happen on my Panasonics.

• It appears there is some noise/loss of detail even at base ISO (200).

Four words: DxO Optics Pro Elite. Superb noise reduction and detail retention.

• The remote camera function is better in some ways but has a major flaw. There is no face detect when using the remote app as there is with the A7II and AF works terrible in certain circumstances. For example, I could not achieve focus with the 40-150mm fully zoomed. I continuously pressed on different parts of my face and it would focus on the foliage behind me. I couldn't get a single sharp shot in this situation. Very disappointing and a bit of a dealbreaker in itself since I use this function all the time with my girlfriend for better quality "selfies". The A7II, even with an adapted Canon 55-250mm STM achieved perfect focus every time via face detect.

Panasonic's remote app is widely hailed as among the best, probably THE best.

• The "whirring" IBIS noise is super annoying. I've never experienced a noise like this in a camera except for some noisy AF in certain lenses.

With certain Panasonic OIS lenses I can hear a very faint whirring. I do not hear any whirring from the IBIS in my GX7 bodies.

• The IQ on the A7II turned out substantially better in my testing, even using crop mode with the cheap Canon 55-250mm STM fully zoomed. I thought the excellent Olympus lenses would balance this out but that wasn't the case. I believed the 40-150mm was sharper when I first tested it but it appears the 55-250mm still has an advantage. Both are excellent lenses for the money. The 55mm also killed the 45mm in IQ and shallow DOF (as expected). The 45mm still did excellent, especially when stopped down to f2.2 but the Zony was razor sharp wide-open, and sharper at f1.8 than the 45mm was at f2.2. I think the 45mm is still much sharper than my old Sony E-mount f1.8 OSS lens wide open so still impressive. Kit lenses were about equally mediocre.

That particular Sony lens is hailed as a particularly good one. Other Sony lenses, not so much. You're comparing very different focal lengths. Appropriate comparison for the Oly 45 would be a Sony 85. Reviews indicate Panasonic's 42.5/1.7 is sharper at the edges than the Oly 45.

• The dynamic range of the Sony sensor is significantly better (also expected). Very usable shots even when pulling up shadows. The E-M1 shadows show heavy noise when pulled too much and it loses highlight data much easier.

This is partially offset if you can use an MFT lens that's faster than the Sony equivalent focal length. For example, Panasonic's 12/1.4 or Olympus' 12/2 will let you shoot at a lower ISO on MFT than Sony's 16/2.8 on APS, giving you equal or better noise and DR. This is most relevant when comparing with Sony's APS cameras due to Sony's limited APS lens lineup. Less of a factor when comparing with Sony 35mm, since more fast lenses are available for that line.

• The high ISO performance of the E-M1 is disappointing. I didn't compare it side-by-side to the Sony but even ISO 3200 is almost unusable for me. It seems at least a stop worse than my old A6000, two stops worse than the A6300, and maybe even slightly more than two stops compared to the A7II. It's about on par with my RX100IV which is disappointing to say the least.

In DPR's Studio Test shots, E-M1 looks cleaner to me at ISO 3200 than a6000/a6300 at 6400, so less than one stop advantage there. a7II vs. E-M1 looks like 1.5 stops. The a7II has the same old sensor as the original a7. A modern 35mm sensor, such as the a7RII's, does deliver the expected two stops advantage.

• I didn't compare tracking side-by-side but the few tests I did were disappointing tracking slow moving subjects (cats). I may need to try some different AF settings. I use C-AF and C-AF tracking.

The E-M1 is not the best at C-AF among MFT cameras. Newer Panasonics are reported to do better. That said, the a6000/a6300 are widely reported to be significantly better at C-AF.

Overall I love the camera but I think the sensor and AF may be too limiting for the photography I do. Even though it was compared to the much more expensive A7II in these tests, I think even my old A6000 would beat it in many areas at almost half the cost.

On C-AF, yes, but on noise & DR you can sometimes do better with MFT by using glass that's brighter than what's available for Sony APS. As for S-AF, reviews indicate the a6000/a7/a7II are not great in very low light, whereas Panasonic's S-AF is among the best, working well down to -4EV.

I think if the E-M2 releases with the rumored new sensor that may be an almost perfect camera.

The E-M2 is likely to use the same 20MP Sony MFT sensor that's in the GX8, which has only marginally better rez and comparable noise. It's not a big upgrade.

Not sure if I will be keeping the E-M1 long term. I originally planned to get a two format kit (FF and m43) but now I'm not really sure if m43 would see much use until they make some improvements. Either way I am happy with the decision and glad I finally got to see what all the hype is about. Great camera with just a few flaws

How big are you printing? My experience is that with handheld shots there's no visible detail difference in 16"x21" prints between MFT's 16MP and higher-rez sensors. To get a practical rez benefit, ya gotta use a tripod and good primes, shoot static subjects, and print really big. Where I need more DR is generally on landscape shots, and for those I exposure bracket and HDR. This gives me more DR than you can get from any single capture. The only reason I'd move to a bigger sensor is for ISO 3200+. Fast primes on MFT generally let me keep ISO at 1600 or below.

Since I don't need C-AF, the only upgrade that makes sense to me would be an a7RII with fast primes. This would give me a genuine 2-stop noise benefit, but this is a pricey package, and I could not afford to shoot with three of them as I do with MFT now. Sony APS, with its lack of the fast primes I need, offers almost no noise advantage, and the MP increase yields a print only 10-20% bigger (vs. 20/16MP MFT) in each dimension.

Denjw wrote:

SonyArtisan wrote:

A bit of backstory here so skip to the comparison if desired. I recently picked up an E-M1 to see if I would like the m43 system. The E-M1 is well respected and still considered the flagship by many. Some of you may have seen my other thread where I've been talking about my impulsive buying and selling cameras habit. There are no camera stores within several hours of me that stock more than the usual Canikon (and some Sony) gear so I either need to rent or buy to test out new gear. I typically prefer to buy gear, use it for a short period, then sell it at a slight loss instead of renting. This way there is no time constraint and it costs me about the same in the end. I had an A6000 for all of 2015 that I shot side-by-side with my girlfriend's A7II. When the A6300 was announced I sold the A6000 and purchased the A6300. I did not see enough of an improvement over the A6000 (I really wanted IBIS) and ended up returning it. I then used an RX100IV for the next few months and eventually sold that off to get back into an ILC system. I tried out the Olympus E-PL6 and fell in love with the lens size and quality, but the camera itself wasn't enjoyable to use (no EVF, lack of controls, poor LCD, etc.)

So I've had the E-M1 for about two days and got to compare it to the A7II today. I tested the A7II with the Sony Zeiss 55mm, the 28-70mm, and an adapted Canon 55-250mm STM (in APS-C mode). I tested the E-M1 with the Olympus 45mm f1.8, 14-42mm R ii, and 40-150mm f4-5.6. I also used the remote camera apps extensively. Here are my thoughts about the E-M1:

In 2 days, wow I would not assess a camera until I used it extensively.

The good:

• Great build quality, dials feel much better than the A7II. Many more controls. Grip is similar on both.
• Great EVF and screen. I didn't realize how poor the A7II's is until I used it side-by-side against the E-M1.
• AF-S was fast and accurate
• Touch screen works well although I didn't find myself using it much
• IBIS works fantastic. Good for 4-5 stops
• The 45mm and 40-150mm are excellent for the size. The 14-42mm is so-so (as is the Sony 28-70mm)
• The colors out of camera (RAW in LR) were slightly better than the Sony for skintones and foliage. The A7II still makes things look too yellow for my taste.
• Burst is a respectable 10fps
• The 4/3 aspect ratio is interesting to work with. I think I actually like it for portraits but not for landscapes

The bad:

• Menus are about as poor as Sony. I felt that I preferred the Sony menus but probably only because I'm so used to them.

Again, two days to get used to / assess the menus?

• I hated how when reviewing an image and placing your eye to the EVF the camera exits playback mode. Perhaps there is a setting I missed for this.

You need to go to Rec View and turn it off this playback mode. I will let you find it so you get to know the camera better.

• It appears there is some noise/loss of detail even at base ISO (200).
• The remote camera function is better in some ways but has a major flaw. There is no face detect when using the remote app as there is with the A7II and AF works terrible in certain circumstances. For example, I could not achieve focus with the 40-150mm fully zoomed. I continuously pressed on different parts of my face and it would focus on the foliage behind me. I couldn't get a single sharp shot in this situation. Very disappointing and a bit of a dealbreaker in itself since I use this function all the time with my girlfriend for better quality "selfies". The A7II, even with an adapted Canon 55-250mm STM achieved perfect focus every time via face detect.

For selfies! Wow that says it all.

• The "whirring" IBIS noise is super annoying. I've never experienced a noise like this in a camera except for some noisy AF in certain lenses.

Easy to get used to and ignore.

• The IQ on the A7II turned out substantially better in my testing, even using crop mode with the cheap Canon 55-250mm STM fully zoomed. I thought the excellent Olympus lenses would balance this out but that wasn't the case. I believed the 40-150mm was sharper when I first tested it but it appears the 55-250mm still has an advantage. Both are excellent lenses for the money. The 55mm also killed the 45mm in IQ and shallow DOF (as expected). The 45mm still did excellent, especially when stopped down to f2.2 but the Zony was razor sharp wide-open, and sharper at f1.8 than the 45mm was at f2.2. I think the 45mm is still much sharper than my old Sony E-mount f1.8 OSS lens wide open so still impressive. Kit lenses were about equally mediocre.

Comparing a FF 42 megapixel camera against a m4/3 16 megapixel camera is not a fair comparison.

• The dynamic range of the Sony sensor is significantly better (also expected). Very usable shots even when pulling up shadows. The E-M1 shadows show heavy noise when pulled too much and it loses highlight data much easier.

As above.

• The high ISO performance of the E-M1 is disappointing. I didn't compare it side-by-side to the Sony but even ISO 3200 is almost unusable for me. It seems at least a stop worse than my old A6000, two stops worse than the A6300, and maybe even slightly more than two stops compared to the A7II. It's about on par with my RX100IV which is disappointing to say the least.

If you had researched the camera better you would have known its high ISO limitations.

But according to Imaging Resources it has "very good high ISO performance for its class."

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/olympus-e-m1/olympus-e-m1A5.HTM

• I didn't compare tracking side-by-side but the few tests I did were disappointing tracking slow moving subjects (cats). I may need to try some different AF settings. I use C-AF and C-AF tracking.

You need to get to know the camera better and use certain settings to deliver better C-AF performance, Most find the C-AF good but the C-AF + tracking not reliable.

Plenty of good exponents of BIFs on this forum using the E-M1.

Overall I love the camera but I think the sensor and AF may be too limiting for the photography I do. Even though it was compared to the much more expensive A7II in these tests, I think even my old A6000 would beat it in many areas at almost half the cost. I think if the E-M2 releases with the rumored new sensor that may be an almost perfect camera. Not sure if I will be keeping the E-M1 long term. I originally planned to get a two format kit (FF and m43) but now I'm not really sure if m43 would see much use until they make some improvements. Either way I am happy with the decision and glad I finally got to see what all the hype is about. Great camera with just a few flaws

Just a few eh? Clearly m4/3 is not for you, you need to move on and get the latest and greatest DSLR.

I think he compared the E-M1 to the A7II, which has a 24Mpx sensor.

In the vertical resolution the A7II has 4000 lines versus 3456 lines of the Oly. Still more and possibly better pixel, but as far off as the A7r II would have been.

He made an effort to share his early impressions. People do this on these fora. Cut him some slack.

Worse in my book are those who mention that they don't own the camera in question, but have heard that the camera is no good ...

Plenty of room for all sorts of opinions (handling in the shop for 10 minutes flat being another favourite of mine ...) - including yours.

Thanks for taking the time to type all this. Not that I am interested in Sony, at least not for now, but I am considering on buying an Oly again. OK, I was not considering this camera but the E-M5 II so it isn't really the same, but my worries are the image sensor and the IBIS noise. The sensor is the same in both cameras and I think the IBIS is also the same, maybe with some improvements in the way it is handled in the E-M5 II. Never the less, what puts me off is the DR and ISO noise, even at ISO200. I can't understand how Oly still not managed to improve that, and I am actually not comparing with my D800, but with the age old Nikon V1. Your point about the aspect ratio is something I almost forgot about. OK, the image can be cropped to 3:2 but that costs quite some pixels, so it is indeed a negative point.

In other words, the more I look at the camera or read about similar cameras the more certain I am about waiting some more... at least until Photokina.

olyflyer wrote:

Thanks for taking the time to type all this. Not that I am interested in Sony, at least not for now, but I am considering on buying an Oly again. OK, I was not considering this camera but the E-M5 II so it isn't really the same, but my worries are the image sensor and the IBIS noise. The sensor is the same in both cameras and I think the IBIS is also the same, maybe with some improvements in the way it is handled in the E-M5 II. Never the less, what puts me off is the DR and ISO noise, even at ISO200. I can't understand how Oly still not managed to improve that, and I am actually not comparing with my D800, but with the age old Nikon V1. Your point about the aspect ratio is something I almost forgot about. OK, the image can be cropped to 3:2 but that costs quite some pixels, so it is indeed a negative point.

In other words, the more I look at the camera or read about similar cameras the more certain I am about waiting some more... at least until Photokina.

I guarantee you, you are not going to see ISO 200 noise in a print unless it's a mural or you put your nose on the paper. No prospective buyer is going to do that. Nobody has ever looked at my exhibition prints and said, "Gee, great image, but I wish it had more detail and less noise". In fact, I sold a bunch of 12"x18" prints made with a $300 12MP superzoom. Also, good RAW conversion software (DxO Optics Pro Elite with PRIME NR) will make your ISO 200 shots smooth as butter and sharp as a tack.

olyflyer wrote:

Thanks for taking the time to type all this. Not that I am interested in Sony, at least not for now, but I am considering on buying an Oly again. OK, I was not considering this camera but the E-M5 II so it isn't really the same, but my worries are the image sensor and the IBIS noise. The sensor is the same in both cameras and I think the IBIS is also the same, maybe with some improvements in the way it is handled in the E-M5 II. Never the less, what puts me off is the DR and ISO noise, even at ISO200. I can't understand how Oly still not managed to improve that, and I am actually not comparing with my D800, but with the age old Nikon V1. Your point about the aspect ratio is something I almost forgot about. OK, the image can be cropped to 3:2 but that costs quite some pixels, so it is indeed a negative point.

In other words, the more I look at the camera or read about similar cameras the more certain I am about waiting some more... at least until Photokina.

Em1 has a Panny sensor, em5II has a Sony one. The former has the old 5-axis IBIS, the latter has the newer one that is pne stop better and can make the micro adjustments for hires shots.