OM-D E-M5 Still Good Portable Option? Shutter Shock Etc?

larrytusaz wrote:

I have shot with seemingly everything it seems, some years ago I had an E-PL1 and then an E-PM1. Meant to get the E-PM2 for the 16mp sensor but went Sony instead. Most recently I had the A6000 (again) but sold it due to the 16-50 being subpar and STILL not updated (Sony has apparently totally forgotten about entry level APS-C and especially lenses). Currently I have a D3300 kit and a D600 for when I want the ultimate and am willing to put in the effort.

I previously had an RX100 I then III (sold the latter to have an A6000 again) I now once again am finding that I need something smallish for when even a D3300 much less a D600 is not going to be around.

I have spotted an OM-D EM-5 on the cheap (around $200 with the 14-42) and am considering it. (Again, why not the A6000? That 16-50 hasn't been updated in forever.) It would be largely for landscapes. I am thinking this could be a smallish option, the 2 reasons I am hesitant. (1) If an RX100 is near the same image quality yet even a lot smaller, why not that? (Although even the III is quite a bit higher than what I've spotted the E-M5 for.) (2) Are there shutter shock issues with the E-M5?

Thoughts?

If your budget is limited, It would be still a great deal.  But, I shy from used second hand gear because you could end up with issues.  And why waste money that is already limited.  Thus, if you can get a factory refurbished camera it will be a good investment.
Even more better is saving up for a new camera.  A lot has changed in the past 5 years in camera technology, and for that few hundred more, you can get a a camera that has better performance, better image ability, and better condition.  Which to me is the wiser choice if you are going to have only one camera.

I still use my EM5 Mk1 as IQ has not improved much with the later M43 cameras.

Never had SS with my 7-14 2.8, 12-35 2.8, 35,100 2.8 and 100-300 lenses.

At 200 it is well Worth buying if it is in good condition.

My Blog is mostly illustrated with EM5 shots

I still use the E-m5, I can't find any serious reason to upgrade after I bought an Eye-fi card.

You will appreciate it better if you can add a cheap fast prime (45mm f1. 8 or 20/25) or the 12 40 f2.8.

Nothing fatal with the E-M5, still a very capable camera. I have seen shutter shock with the 12-50, no idea whether it's more common with that lens. There is no EFCS or e-shutter workaround, but to be fair it was a rare occurrence. The other gotcha is weird high-ISO banding with the Panny 20/1.7, and only with that lens.

It's a relatively small, weatherproof and tough camera that's simple to set up and use. Great with fast primes and I'd ponder at least one weather-sealed zoom for a bad-weather rig.

If the price is right and the shutter count is decent, then dive in.

Cheers,

Rick

a GM1 or GM5 or maybe a GX850. All are small and have a wonderful vibration free stepper motor shutter or fully electronic shutter at higher speeds. Same IQ as EM5. Smaller and lighter. Get a Panny 12-32 and you have a small, light, high IQ setup.

I have a RX100 I and a GM1 and while there really is not a big IQ difference, the GM1 is much more pleasurable to use and I can carry along a small prime or any number of other lenses to use. It is just more flexible and works better as a camera.

larrytusaz wrote:

I have shot with seemingly everything it seems, some years ago I had an E-PL1 and then an E-PM1. Meant to get the E-PM2 for the 16mp sensor but went Sony instead. Most recently I had the A6000 (again) but sold it due to the 16-50 being subpar and STILL not updated (Sony has apparently totally forgotten about entry level APS-C and especially lenses). Currently I have a D3300 kit and a D600 for when I want the ultimate and am willing to put in the effort.

I previously had an RX100 I then III (sold the latter to have an A6000 again) I now once again am finding that I need something smallish for when even a D3300 much less a D600 is not going to be around.

I have spotted an OM-D EM-5 on the cheap (around $200 with the 14-42) and am considering it. (Again, why not the A6000? That 16-50 hasn't been updated in forever.) It would be largely for landscapes. I am thinking this could be a smallish option, the 2 reasons I am hesitant. (1) If an RX100 is near the same image quality yet even a lot smaller, why not that? (Although even the III is quite a bit higher than what I've spotted the E-M5 for.) (2) Are there shutter shock issues with the E-M5?

Thoughts?

I`ve been using the EM5 since it was first introduced, to this day I`ve never experienced shutter shock ever and have used a wide variety of lenses.

Some of us can still remember the real shutter shock from some of the old SLR`s, with great big clunky mirrors and shutters, we simply lived with it, was something to be expected and we found ways to avoid its effects.

SS in mirrorless, no big deal and yes, the EM5 is still good, if you can get a good deal on it.

larrytusaz wrote:

I have shot with seemingly everything it seems, some years ago I had an E-PL1 and then an E-PM1. Meant to get the E-PM2 for the 16mp sensor but went Sony instead. Most recently I had the A6000 (again) but sold it due to the 16-50 being subpar and STILL not updated (Sony has apparently totally forgotten about entry level APS-C and especially lenses). Currently I have a D3300 kit and a D600 for when I want the ultimate and am willing to put in the effort.

I previously had an RX100 I then III (sold the latter to have an A6000 again) I now once again am finding that I need something smallish for when even a D3300 much less a D600 is not going to be around.

I have spotted an OM-D EM-5 on the cheap (around $200 with the 14-42) and am considering it. (Again, why not the A6000? That 16-50 hasn't been updated in forever.) It would be largely for landscapes. I am thinking this could be a smallish option, the 2 reasons I am hesitant. (1) If an RX100 is near the same image quality yet even a lot smaller, why not that? (Although even the III is quite a bit higher than what I've spotted the E-M5 for.) (2) Are there shutter shock issues with the E-M5?

Thoughts?

The original E-M5 does have a pretty subdued shutter action so isn't terribly prone to visible shutter shock in my experience - there may occasionally be a touch of softening, but that's arguable in cause. Just as well really, because as somebody else said, it has neither an electronic/silent shutter option, nor the EFCS (electronic first curtain shutter) option, which Olympus calls 0-sec Anti-Shock.  It has the other timed Anti-Shock delays, which are longer and operate in a different manner than 0-sec, so they're not so useful and slow the camera's responsivity.

I would strongly advise that you check the operation of the fastest shutter speeds, particularly after the camera's been resting for a while.  The model of shutter used in the E-M5 (not the Mark II or any other OM-D model) seems somewhat prone to developing shutter tapering/capping issues at the fast speeds (uneven travel, where the top or bottom edge of the image may have different exposure than the rest, or an even exposure that is noticeably underexposed all over; sometimes even a totally unexposed image).  I recall seeing a fair number of reports of this on the forum andindeed  one of my two examples (bought new and it's not actually been used that much) has developed the issue.  Funnily enough, though clearly (from the sound!) a different model of shutter, I've found the Panasonic GX8 vulnerable to this issue too, but it has silent shutter as a workaround (also a handy way of proving the problem when requesting a repair!).

Hi!

I bought my M5 at the end of 2017. I have not noticed any shutter shock. At ~200$ (and with lens) I'd say it is good buy. I had 14-42 with my PM1 and it was a good lens/copy. No one mentioned shutter count? My suggestion is that you check it in menu. My M5 had about 1000, which I consider low shutter count. I have been happy with M5, even I own and shoot also PEN-F and several other cameras... Low-light performance and oicture quality is, indeed, better than with PM1, but of course about a same than with PM2 (if not counting better IBIS and some other things)

A s l a