With the Mark II version, Olympus' new flagship comes with some big improvements despite remaining relatively compact. Between its impressive speed, autofocus system and video capabilities, almost every core specification has been bumped up a notch (or three). We sat down with Olympus' Eric Gensel to go through some of those changes in more detail, from continuous shooting (and what its mechanical shutter sounds like at 15 fps) to just how effective Olympus' image stabilization has become.
@Thomas You simply don't get it. You can't compare a 12-40 2.8 MFT with a 24-70 2.8 on Fullframe. It's not about getting shallow DOF all the time, it's about people who look at Olympus and think about changing the equipment for a smaller package. If I would change to another plattform I would at least expect to do the same pictures as before, but with less weight. *I CANT MAKE THE SAME PICTURES*, because the DOF is not comparable, the ISO isn't eighter. I even need ridiculous priced f1.2 lenses to get a look like I had with a cheap 50 f1.8 on FF. Don't always understand that as thread to the MFT format... I would buy me an Olympus anytime, but not as wedding-workhorse. Just as Second Cam. And I wouldn't use anything else than a small prime to keep the size small.
To me the LUMIX G 20mm f/1.7 II ASPH. Lens is more a useful focal length than 25 f1.2 and of course is only moderately priced. DOF is excellent in my experience too. The Olympus M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 45mm f/1.8's quality of bokeh is also superb by any measure. I also use a Olympus Zuiko 12-60mm f/2.8-4 ED SWD, with a Four-Thirds to Micro-Four-Thirds adaptor, and nicely blurred backgrounds are possible too - perhaps not quite as much as you'd like at a 120mm equivalent, but still a pleasing result.
Another great legacy Four-Thirds lens that has bokeh as good, if not better than say an APS-C equivalent (18-200mm) is the Panasonic Leica D Vario-Elmar 14-150mm f/3.5-5.6 lens + adaptor:
How I wish that Olympus had adopted Maitani's brilliant & original OM series design, re-jigged it to fit a sensor in place of the mirror-box and an LCD at the back to give us the digital OMs. Am sure their very ingenuous design department would have found an answer/work-around to lens-flange distance of the SLR design.
If they had built a full-frame mirrorless, it could have used the original OM lenses with an adapter and without a crop factor, rather than with a 2X crop factor. In that case, the use of the OM name would have been more credible.
Yeah, the classic OMs are gorgeous, and I really don't like how the M1 looks. I guess they put their visual design ideas into the Pen-F, and just focused on functionality on the M1, but I would've liked it if they kept more of the classic look.
Unapologetic would be right. They have no need to apologise. Yes, the sensor is small in comparison to the body, but you can't make a body that small, while still giving you a decent size grip, putting in all the controls dials for a high grade camera, and increasing the battery size.
Aaaaah, *you can't make the body that small*. Told that a few years ago to the "mirrorless will eat all others"-fraction and got a lot of hating for it. Seems the reality wins after the hype....
Anything below a Canon 5D or Nikon 750 is not ergonomic for *me*. Seems this opinion is at least allowed again...
How small do "Anything below a Canon 5D or Nikon 750 is not ergonomic for *me*" is as stupid a declaration as 'why are you driving that little car when you can now buy a Hummer' I mean they're so much bigger *for me*
I just told you that after using anything between a Fuji GX680 and a cellphone, the size of a Nikon 810 or Canon 5D turned out to be the best ergonomic match for me. You can use whatever you want. What's so stupid about? Stupid is to walk around declaring DSLRs are death because mirrorless is smaller. No one cares about the size if it's in a reasonable range.
Correct. I would take a Ricoh GR for streetphotography, but never for weddings. And the few (pro-)people who use a mirrorless I know of, always use a vertical grip anyway. Seems to be too awkward to use without...
This is a serious question, not a hate game - what is the reason to buy this over X-T1 or A6300 if the Olympus is bigger in dimensions? I don't get it really, you get in both cases bigger APS-C sensor... I understand models like EM10, but this? Why?
The cameras might be slightly bigger (+ more substantial grip) but the lenses most definitely are not. I guess some people want a highly specified camera AND still want very small lenses. Micro four thirds lenses can be & almost always are significantly smaller than larger senser counterparts, (in case you didn't know.) Why do people want smaller? Ask Olympus' marketing dept, but obviously there must be the weight/ bulk factor, but smaller also means more discrete - less of the paparazzi look..
I can't speak for others, but the main reason I'll most likely be getting the mk2 is because I've been really happy w/ the original E-M1 (I've taken it across 5 continents and through mud, ice, snow, and lots of water). I originally tested the X-T1 vs the E-M1 when it came out (and I love all my X100's) but the E-M1 handled better for me (also the 5-axis IBIS was a killer feature) and had a much better lens selection. I'm happy w/ my both my current lenses and my upgrade options (which are much smaller, although the quality is the more important thing for me), and while not GH5-level (although again, it's nice to have a body option w/o needing all new lenses), the new video options look great, as does the handheld sensor-shift imaging. Of course everyone's needs are different. While a factor, below a certain point, shaving a few mm is not the greatest reason to pick one system or body over another IMO.
People tend to want to boil complex perspectives down into oversimplified self-validating clear cut solutions. But considering camera body size only I think the body size is a function of the size of the screen on the back, the amount of direct controls for the target market, the size of the lenses that might be used on the camera, the size of the battery used, dual cards or not, and heat dissipation needed for video and photo processing. All these contribute to a certain minimum practical size. Any other mirrorless could be about the same depth and width.I think the E-M1 looks just about right. I prefer the larger battery, dual slots, and more secure grip to absolute thinness in the grip area. Bigger mirrorless bodies are still not DSLR size with their mirror and prism system, but everything else (like a reasonably sized LCD, heat management, battery, slots...) still have to be there. The lenses are a completely different story. That's more relative to sensor size.
Am I seeing things wrong, or is that camera just as big as the full frame mirrorless Sony lineup? Maybe Sony needs to make F5.6/F8 zoom lenses to compete with M4/3.
The camera body is of a similar size to the A7, all of the lenses are significantly smaller, and cheaper. Carry around a full package, with a couple of lenses, and you'll see the difference.
In relation to F5.6/F8 lenses, yes, those would be equivalent in DoF, but not in exposure, so it's not quite as simple as that.
If Sony actually built some smaller/slower lenses the size of M4/3 stuff I'd take a second look at them instead of augmenting my existing M4/3 kit with one f1.2 prime.
I'd like to get reacquainted with Olympus (and I want to play with a 42.5 mm Nocticron f/1.2). My last Oly was a Pen D2 half-frame film camera - you'd get 72+ vertically orientated shots from a 36 roll.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pwxbxl4i6Ps in this video (sorry is in italian) a headphone jack is shown on the em-1 mkII. Did I miss it? Am I the only one who miss it? I thought there was no headphonejack on the camera.
The Oly guy missed, I think, the opportunity to mention the Pro Shooting mode where 14 frames can be captured once the shutter is half depressed -- certainly a help in getting those ball-hitting-the-bat shots we see.
@fuego6: If you, or anyone else are incapable to delete the unusable shots by ranking them few times, it is your/their problem.
But look now the sports arena of Canon/Nikon (mainly Canon) shooters and say how often you see skilled photographer to use single drive and take just a one frame capturing the perfect moment? Oh.... I understand now...
You failed as well to understand that Pro Shooting mode allows you to browse the frames in camera and then select the best one and trash all rest, in body!
Tommi - I didn't fail to understand anything thank you... pro photographers don't spend the time going through photos (are you that out of touch with the industry)? - some poor schlep is sitting in a trailer (getting memory cards from runners) doing it. I don't have the time nor desire to go through 40 images of the same shot times 100 images each time you shoot something. If you do and that is what you enjoy - more power to you. If mashing a button and hoping for the best shot is where photography skill is going... count me out. I rather take 3 shots and take my chances.. than mash a button, get 40-70 shots a second apart and then spend hours in front of a computer reviewing and deleted the "bad" ones.
fuego6 - It's is simple as not using a function that you don't see value in. For those that like it, they can use it. You are obviously better than that, and can choose not to use it.
In a recent interview on photography blog, one of the Olympus reps describes the feature as being targeted at enthusiasts, as opposed to pros, who won't necessarily need it.
But aside from that: I don't even understand the complaint, when most "pros" keep wanting high FPS/C-AF performance out of the highest grade cameras, and rapid fire shots from start to finish anyway.
I never said "what a stupid feature"... I just stated that going through all those images is a chore and I'm not sure what the major appeal is.. Might as well just take 4k video and grab a still frame... is photography really going the way of button mashing and frame captures? Yick!
A video still frame would be lower res (8MP), more prone to artifacts, would have less adjustment leeway (stuck with a JPEG rather than RAW), and often means compromised AF compared to burst stills C-AF... You clearly have no use for that kinda feature but you also show a clear misunderstanding of it's usefulness and raison d'etre, so why even bother commenting on it?
Some Pros will criticize while others will use innovation to innovate. They will do with the feature what others with less skill or vision won't achieve with the same. And perspective will remain the Achilles heel of the mind--even for pros.
You guys are likely not real Pros. A Pro will use any feature to get the shot, period, AND know when and how to turn the feature on or off! If YOUR camera does not have that feature, then you will find ways to deride the new Olympus. I get sick of all this amateur babbling.
Sorry Mr Pro... I'll go skunk off only to the "Not-Real Pros" forum and let you "REAL PROs" discuss things... Oh.. if only I was a "Real Pro"... then I wouldn't type "amateur babble"... Some day I tell ya... SOME DAY!!!
A plea to Olympus for the E-M1 ii - full control of focus bracketing from the iPhone app (OI Share) - or at least as much control as currently possible using that app with the TG-4. With the E-M1, control is limited to 'remote shutter'. Would be great to be able to set the number of shots and the focus differential from the app. Currently one has to turn off wi-fi and use the camera's menu.
No need to turn WiFi off. Set O.I.S to Remote Control instead Live View. Now you can operate the camera normally while phone is connected to camera. When you have set the values etc, release the shutter from the phone to initiate focus stacking/bracketing.
Problems Olympus to solve (hopefully done in E-M1 II) 1) Possibility to add 1-4 second delay in camera start for all bracketing/stacking so you don't need to use touch screen or phone.
2) And yes, add the focus stacking / bracketing control to phone...
I always laugh when they say it's also geared towards a working pro sports shooter. Yeah a pro sports shooter would use 4/3 when so many great full frame sports camera's!
Lol, ignorance is bliss? What about the Canon 7D Mark II and the Nikon D500? Both great and popular sports cameras. Count the Olympus E-M1 Mark II in that list.
I know a few pro photographers. The bigger of the young ones still hang fifteen or twenty pounds of equipment (that's a top tier FF Nikon or Canon and a second, usually 2nd tierFF body and a few lenses). The older ones are very much in the market for something smaller and lighter because of back and neck problems, FF certainly has a place for detailed landscape photography and double-truck, perhaps cover photos. For most other uses the resolution, IQ, DR of mFT is more than adequate - just compare it to the equipment, film and paper the best photographers of yesteryear used to produce some of their best images of all time!
@ NeilJones - You seem under the impression that all Pro Sports shooters are on the sidelines of the NFL/NBA/NHL/etc. In fact very few are; the vast majority of Pro Sports shooters are on the sidelines of high school/community club/amature venues shooting where money is always an issue. Not a lot of those shooters can afford $10K glass and $6K bodies so this opens a whole new venue for Olympus and I for one say well done Oly.
another winner .. from olympus I would probably wait for em-5 equivalent with 4k and same ibis as this, bec I am not into fast af tracking or 15 fps shutter speed and I like the tiny hand-grips of em-5s. but no doubt, this one is another step forward by olympus in almost each direction :)
Probably good advice for people to whom fast AF for older FT lenses is not essential, Owning both an EM-1 and OM5II, I find that the slightly lighter and -more important- slimmer and less and less angular body of the latter usually makes it the body I take along (cycling, walking, lectures, etc)
I think Oly seriously needs to think about moving their TotL tracking abilities (which means a sensor with OSPDAF) to their smaller bodies, everyone else has (including Panasonic with DFD).
If they release another $800+ F or PEN without improved tracking the E-M5 II would probably be my first and last Oly body. It used to be Panasonic that played this kinda game, segregating too much for their high end body...
Other than that I like a lot of what Oly is doing (even if their PEN pricing is still bizarre), but either the E-M5 II or the PEN-F should've had something to compete with regards to C-AF vs the G7/GX85/G85, a6000/6300/etc.
Smaller body shouldn't inherently mean compromised feature set... Smaller buffer, slower burst rate, sure... But there's a big functional gap between their OSPDAF E-M1 bodies and the rest.
Sorry, but Olympus has already missed the script so to say...their USP in the film days were FF stuff in an amazingly compact body with a full complement of lenses and accessories for the professional as well as the serious enthusiast. If I remember correctly the film OM system had 285 components, in all !! I personally feel that m4/3 was the wrong way to go...had they remained with APS-C, Nikon, Canon & Sony would have a run for their money,,,because so far as form & functionality is concerned, no camera manufacturer even comes close to Olympus. Now Olympus doesn't appear in the top three...
You know that 12-100 f4 makes me think of the days with 35mm film where you would often just set the aperture to f8 and forget about it, along with obviously fixed ISO film, and only worrying about shutter speed. 24-200 at the constant equiv f8 this offers is certainly a much less demanding thought process on shooting. Auto-ISO in M mode with the aperture fixed at f4 and a nice shutter dial on the E-M1 and you're really off and running all the way from wide to 200mm telephoto.
I switched from Nikon D800 to EM1 partly because of the size and weight saving, but mainly because I was sick of front and back focus ruining the shots. The em1 was a step back in terms of focus tracking, but was usable. If the performance of the EM1 mkii AF tracking system delivers as promised there is nothing I will miss from having made the switch. Way to go Olympus.
The focus limiting really interests me. The 40-150mm f2.8 hunts a lot so being able to set it from 4m to infinity etc will greatly improve it, especially along with a better AF system.
<< but mainly because I was sick of front and back focus ruining the shots. >>
Good call making the switch from Nikon to Olympus - now the Mark 2 is a thing, I'm about to jump ship myself - but did you know you can fine-tune Nikon's autofocus to each individual lens via a menu item? It's a bit of a trial-and-error faff, but basically pretty simple. I did it with my D7000 and its kit lens, and it made a very noticeable difference.
peterwr - "but did you know you can fine-tune Nikon's autofocus to each individual lens via a menu item?"
And did you also know the E-M1 & E-M1 Mk II should too, have the same adjustments? If PD-AF is involved, then it is necessary to adjust for any variations in the lens too. The Mk II being hybrid may likely benefit from these micro adjustment with all lenses, but particularly with 4/3's lenses (SWD etc).
I wonder if it can achieve the same low light video performance of the A6300? Also, why not a slow motion video mode? Could it still offer 1080p 120fps? Is the only thing that is missing...
Maybe, but it looks to me like that em1 markII sensor is optimized for fast full sensor readout at 60fps which also help when taking photos at high frame rates with the electronic shutter.
The A6300 has pretty big rolling shutter problems which, if early reports are to be believed, the EM1 markII does not (but not completely gone either).
If the video on the my OM5II is any indication, then that on the EM1II will be the cat's meow! While the video on my EM-1 is very usable, the superb IS on the 5II is almost like having a built-in steady cam.
Since earlier comment from @bluevellet got a lot of upvotes, please advise if EM1.2 can do 1080 120fps ? I'm a big fan of EM1 ergonomics and their attempts at regular great firmware updates.
It's the 4/3 sensor size that make all these fantastic features possible. It's the sensor size together with the oversized mount that makes these fantastic optics in a small package reality. If you dislike the sensor size you dislike the system and if you dislike the system than you also dislike this camera for what it is. Part of a great system that's different from what other brands bring.
Tell that to the thousands of potential users who drooled at the Nikon 1 system performance but dismissed the "puny" sensor not understanding the latter played a big part in making the former possible.
Because parallels can easily be drawn. Several diehard Nikon1 users already chimed in on the subject.
The one important difference is that m43 is not on its deathbed, unlike Nikon1, and thanks to robust product support, will continue to kick ass for years to come.
The sensor size enables the unique catalog of M4/3 lenses, which is arguably one if it's biggest two or three advantages at this point. You won't find anything sized like the 9-18 & 35-100 f4-5.6 in other systems... Even tho I lust after some of the new larger lenses too, those half dozen lenses under 2x2" that I already own are still the backbone of that system for me. For others it'll be the f2.8 zooms the size of DSLR kit zooms and f4 zooms, etc etc.
Who tells you to dump your DSLR? You shouldn't, if you don't want to.
I didn't buy the E-M1 because it was smaller than my last Olympus DSLR, but because Olympus gave me no choice when they stopped making DSLRs. I would have preferred a new, modernized DSLR from Olympus when the E-M1 came out, but I needed the new sensor and wanted to keep using my DSLR lenses, so I bought it instead of switching to Nikon or Canon, which I would have done without the E-M1.
Fact is, though, the E-M1 *is* substantially smaller than my last DSLR, the E-30, which wasn't even the biggest in the lineup, but the real size advantage only comes when using the really small lenses there are, most obviously the wide-angle and standard primes. And why I actually would have liked a bigger grip on the E-M1 (something the E-M1 II seems to have now) because the E-30 was could be held more securely, I'm quite happy in having substantially reduced the overall package of what I'm carrying.
P.S.: Today, I would buy the E-M1 (I or II) primarily for what it can do and how it enables me to take the pictures I want, not for how its size compares with other cameras – although it indeed is substantially smaller than most DSLRs, especially when combined with the really small lenses there are.
@PanchoVilla: Because even with a 16 MP MFT sensor, and more so with the new 20 MP MFT sensor, we get significantly more telephoto reach out of a 300mm lens than with a 24 MP APS-C sensor. And while some of us might indeed be wildlife shooters, wildlife isn't all we shoot. And for those occasions when we don't shoot wildlife, we use lenses like the tiny M.Zuikos 25mm f/1.8 or 17mm f/1.8, or even the very capable, while light and compact Lumix 14-140/3.5-5.6. While the D500 indeed is what I'd call my dream DSLR, I still prefer the sum of what I get from the E-M1 and its "ecosystem" these days.
(And if I don't want to buy the Olympus 300/4 because of its price tag, I might buy a used Canon EF 300/4 and a Metabones smart adapter instead...)
That same camera coexists in a system with something like the GM1, and I can take the 12-32 pancake from the GM1 and mount it on this or the 25/1.2 announced alongside this and mount it on the GM1 (there's dozens of less extreme scenarios in between those examples). That ability for the system to scale up and down was a huge selling point for me, doesn't mean it'll appeal to everyone tho.
Literally no blackout when shooting bursts! Olympus engineers are some camera magicians. https://youtu.be/3UqbqHMjyXo?t=1m30s You can barely hear the shutter sound and the interviewer took at least 30-40 shots. Keep in mind Olympus rep. mentions why the higher card is important for this new camera. Not likely in camera.
@Mike FL: "If Nikon 1 is not 1" sensor, but joining MFT with Pana and Ply, Nikon 1 will not be dead."
Nikon buys Sony sensors, so Sony dictates what sensors they can use for mirrorless. If Nikon were to release a decent mirrorless, they would crush anything in that sensor size.
This isn't about the Nikon 1 however the only thing wrong with the Nikon 1 was Nikon. They were way over priced, terrible feature set, awful lens choices and abysmal marketing by Nikon.
My 4/3 Lumix 25mm works great on present em1..it is the go to lens indoors with or without flash such as weddings and I don't think the new 25mm 1.2 is worth that much money if you already have a great lens with essentially same parameters….The 12-100 even if it has great range the 4.0 is the killer because again this lens is going to be used essentially for events and weddings and the bokeh and separation of subject is just not there……
Anything not wide angle will get you subject seperation at F4 on m43 easy. It's more a matter of how much you want. If you're used to bright primes, slow zooms will never compare.
Sorry not the kind you need for weddings and portraits even if you go way back from subject .. sometimes my 35-100 2.0 does not even have enough bokeh …the 4.0 would be a disappointment..and at low light the 4.0 would be a train wreck…..
Video clips are, more and more, becoming the norm, even for wedding. The 12-100 will be excellent for those. Especially if you have to shoot both video and stills, as I've had to, at some events.
Without knowing the exact specs of the processors in each product you are simply taking a wild guess that a Sony ML has more processing power. You have no actual evidence to back yourself up.
I do not see EM1.M2 noticeably increased power in carers other than for Video b/c 4K, AF, and high speed shooting, and they use *dedicated cores* per Oly in this video.
If you know how multiple core works *well* and owns Olympus and SONY, you should get the ideal.
BTW, Oly increases RAM size too, which is a good thing, as said in video for the reason we all know.
Well, on the A99 II, based on its ability take 42MP FULL-FRAME pics at 12fps with AF/AE, It would be safe to say that it probably has a faster processor.
@Stu 5 Oh, we can talk more if you have deep knowledge in these areas.
FWIW, My last couple of assignment were testing different Intel prototype mobile CPUs to chose which one is possibly used for consumer products, tablet, Phone for example...
I would think that a Sony processing 42MP files would have more computing power than the Oly processing 20MP files... but it would need it. I really wouldn't care which had more power as long as they have enough to do the job being asked of them. Beyond that, what does it matter?
The DR doesn't have anything to do with it. Higher bit depth allows more freedom for image manipulation – exposure, contrast, color saturation adjustment.
@LJ - Eljot they are not "the last two" digits. You can represent any range – small or large – with any number of gradations. If you have a finer description of your data within the existing range, then the manipulation of this data will also produce more accurate results.
This is exactly what was observed when Nikon offered an option to record either 14 or 16 bit raw files: there was no difference in the OOC images, but as soon as you begin to manipulate images, the 16 bit immediately showed it's superiority.
In general the new cameras have a term of technological life rather short, but very good lenses remain almost eternal, with a street value remains higher + more new used availability. I look first is the availability of lenses for a given camera format.
Some of the new features of the EM1-II like focus range limiting and focus stacking require the new lenses. Video requires lenses with quiet motors and that don't focus breathe. Newer lenses also have more compact design with optical compromises that are compensated for in software correction, plus they have better coatings for flare resistance. One other consideration is weather sealing, so if I buy this camera, I will probably want weather-sealed lenses for it (and there are lots of them available). I wish the Olympus guy had talked about PDAF performance with older FT lenses, particularly the SHG models which seem to be holding their resale value fairly well but don't work very well on the EM5-II.
@obsolescence: for quite a while Olympus has been producing lenses that are optimized for video under the mark "MSC" (movie and still compatible). There's no need to buy new lenses.
I we remove all the "uhh's" and "you know's" from this 7 min video it would be a lot shorter. In fact what did we learn extra that we couldn't have read in 30 seconds - not a lot. Why on earth do people want to see video's like this? .... plus I had to turn the radio off to listen to the video. Please bring back 'writing'. ... yes it's a lot more work for DPR reporters, but a lot more efficient for all of us. ... or just publish the press release, quicker for all of us. Thank you.
I gotta agree. It was a very awkward interview, the DPR guy (sorry i don't know you guys by face) was eerily statue like and the Olympus guy looked like he didn't know what to say. Wasn't much substance either, talked about FPS and a bigger battery. Looks like an amazing camera but we all know the tests we are waiting for and those can't be done at a table. Autofocus tracking plz.
Lets add, never use the term "you know" because I do not. This was just painful to watch. Both parties need to learn how to 1. conduct an interview and be interviewed, 2. stay on topic, 3. have a clear methodology for explanations and order of important of key issues or discussion points. YIKES. Lastly guys relax, you are not at the dentist.
Wu, obviously not. But stop and think before typing, don't you think their would be a larger group of people playing it here than say California? Common sense man.
have you had a sense of humour bypass? You're taking the remarks way to seriously, plenty of people play the Ukulele outside of Hawaii, in the UK there is a Ukulele orchestra and i don't think here is a single Hawaiian or Californian in it......a strange concept i know...but there is great big world outside of the one you seem to inhabit....lighten up a little maybe
not quite a D500 competitor yet, I wouldn't think. The smaller sensor won't have the same high ISO ability (both latest generation... oly has smaller pixels... safe bet) They also don't have anywhere near the lens lineup for fast telephoto primes which gives the sports or wildlife shooter a big advantage with the Nikon. (or canon). This is more aimed at the person who is a keen amateur going on a trip or out hiking. It will not significantly impact the sales of larger DSLRs.
How much is the maximum resolution for the live view image with olympus capture? (Tethering software) Now that this camera has USB 3 it should be much more than with the mark one.
For Olympus users the EM1 II maybe a tempting camera to upgrade to. The stats and the camera features look very good, but I don't see any compelling reason to switch from any APSC system. The size advantage is negligible and the image quality maybe comparable (at best). Olympus's 'pro' lens offerings although very good quality are not exactly compact either. I would consider Olympus if I would not be committed any other system.
the Pro-lenses are not compact? Were do you live? Compare the 24-70/2.8 VR from Nikon to the 12-40/2.8 Pro from Olympus Nikon: 1.070 g, 2.500 €, 155 mm and diameter 88 mm = around 942 ccm Olympus: 382 g, 887 €, 84 mm and 69,9 mm diameter = 323 ccm
- approx. 1/3 of volume - approx. 65 % less weight - approx. 1/3 of the price - and the Olympus is weathersealed and has a longer range
Not compareable? Good compareable! 2/3 less volume is negligible? This size-advantage is negligible? realy?
I shoot Nikon for over 28 years and Nikons has advantages, but size, prize and weight are not the advantages of Nikon!
No good reason to switch? How about 60 frames per second full resolution. It's not something I want or need today, but there are times in my life I would have killed for that.
As a system, I disagree with your size advantage statement. I shoot with an E-M1 and recently did a fair amount of hiking in Canadian Rockies -- Banff and Jasper National Parks. I carried my E-M1 w/Batter Grip, a Bower 7.5mm fisheye, Olympus 9-18mm, Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8, and the Panasonic 100-400mm zoom. The entire set up fit into a Lowepro Slingshot 202AW bag, and weighed 8 lbs. including bag, back up batteries, filters, etc.. That weight was a non-issue for me while hiking at high elevations -- unlike my old DSLR days. That set up gave me an effective FF FOV range of 15mm to 800mm. I'm not so sure you could get near that with any current APS-C system.
The proof remains to be seen whether the mkll performance matches Olympus' claims, but it it does then the performance itself would be a fairly compelling reason.
Never the less, I suspect Olympus is hoping to attract new ILC buyers, as well as people like me who just got tired of carrying around a heavy load of camera gear.
If you take a Canon 80D, Samyang(Bower) 8mm fisheye, Canon EF-S 10-18 (16mm FF equi. UWA rectilinear), 18-55, 55-250, Canon 100-400 II you get 7.8 pounds. The reach at the long end is virtually the same since the 80D allows a bit more cropping (compared to the mark ii), reducing the Oly tele advantage to only about 10% more. Given the better sharpness at the long end of the Canon, I would guess they actually give similar results at 400mm.
"Compare the 24-70/2.8 VR from Nikon to the 12-40/2.8 Pro from Olympus"
That is a ludicrous comparison.
Why not compare the f/1.8 iPhone lens with the Nikon 28mm f/1.8 G while you are at it. They are the same thing, right? Same equivalent focal length, same light gathering, right?
ok so how can you crop a canon 100-400mm using 24mp to be equal to the 20mp of m43 or even 16 mp earlier sensors you would need a sony a7r2 or canon 5ds r and that 100-400mm weighs in and weighs .5 kilo more .camera weighs 300 grams more than my omd em1 or gx8,canon ef-s weighs 240grams the Olympus 9-18 weighs in 155 grams ,canon efs weighs 18-55 200gramms and 50-250mm weighs in at 375 grams against Panasonic 12-35 at 305 grams which is f2.8 and better optics than the canon not lighter but much but enough and better quality in smaller size you need a bigger bag to carry your gear also it all factors in and you have to make more lens changes to me over the equal focal range ,come to think of it I could carry another camera also to equal your weight even less lens changes.
You can compare them and it does help to have a bright lens on any photographic device. But the optics on the Iphone are obviously of lower quality and you can't switch lenses in the Iphone so you're stuck with a crap lens on a device not primarily designed for photography.
to Mike99999: what exactly do you think is ludicrous when two near idendical lenses are compared? Nikon 24-70/2.8 VR with the Olympus 12-40/2.8 Pro (the VR is in the cam). The Olympus has - in FF-standard - 24-80 mm, both have the same apparture, both are pro-lenss (and I have/had both of this two lenses).
So both lenses are near the same focal lense (Olympus has more reach) and have the same apparture.
What is it that you call ludicrous in this comparison?
If only DOP is the only one criteria for you than you are definitely in the wrong forum...... Every system has advantages and disadvantages, mediumFormat, FF, APS-C, MFT and compacts ......
For the best DOP buy a Nikon FF and am 85/1:1,4 and shoot it at 1,4. That's it. It's not very intelligent to demand the same DOP from MFT. It would be the same to like a FF Nikon and their DOP and to complain about size, weight and price...
I'm interested to know how many shots real users are able to get with the new battery and also with the grip attached. Dual card slots + increased battery power are things I'm delighted to see in this followup. Looks really good so far as speed and video goes!
The size: m4/3 system was created to minimize the size and weight of bodies and lenses. But this body is almost of the same size with D7200. So, why not to purchase an APS-C camera instead?
The E-M1 Mkii is built to compete with the 7D Mkii and the D500. The E-M1 Mkii is smaller than either of those cameras. Hopefully it will be like having the performance of the D500 in a camera that is slightly smaller than the D7200.
Because MFT lenses are still smaller than APSC lenses? Because there's barely any difference in IQ in most situations anyway? Because Olympus doesn't make an APSC system? Because regardless of sensor size, this looks like it's going to be an awesome camera?
With a comparable lens a rather more notable size advantage still, such a combo is way smaller than a D7200 one...and with many of the zuiko lenses the whole combination is weather resistant for real, and have a much better IS system etc... For most people already into the m4/3 system it is better to choose the E-M1 Mk2 IF IT DOES offer the features and performance (speed & IQ) the person wants/needs, than to buy a whole new system...if money is not a part of the equation at all one may think otherwise, possibly. But with sooo many advantages that this camera already on paper do offer...many would seriously do good to get it before many other choices even if having to begin their trip into the m4/3 world... Some (but of course not all) not losing (notably much) money even if they´d choose to sell off their old system.
Many thanks to everybody, these comments are very correct and professional! BTW: I have both the D7200 and E-M10 II system, and 10 and 5 quality lenses with them. I use Olympus in all day photography, but when very high IQ is needed, so, I choose the Nikon. I don't believe that E-M1 II can deliver better IQ than modern APS-C cameras. In many other aspects, it might be awesome. Happy autumn !
The E-M1ii is significantly smaller than the D7200. So the OP is loopy. But you might say "why not get the A7Rii" if "almost the same size" body with a much larger sensor is the only criteria on which to make the decision. (Of course I'd like one of each and an XT-2 while your at it). The reduced size of the E-M1ii compared to DSLRs is one thing that counts to many... just how far up the priority list is it?
the Nikon v3 is smaller than the new Olympus, stick the Nikon 70-300mm CX on it and it's smaller lighter has slightly more range and can keep up with the frame rates, the Oly is doing nothing in particular that hasn't already been done
Because you can't shoot photos at 60 fps, can't record in stabilized 4K or don't have access to wide array of lenses perfectly designed to the sensor size (instead of using bulky FF lenses "cropped") among other things.
until it's released we only have marketing to rely on, but i have no doubt it will be a good camera. The high frame rate and size are 2 things MrCentrist focused on, like i said this has been done before...i am not wrong. The new oly brings a lot of improved features found in other models into a new package, there will always be better and worse cameras than it......but they all still take pictures
Most APS-C mounts outside of Fuji's don't have the variety of lens choices that M4/3 do, and I'm talking about both mirrorless AND DSLR. AFAIK most other systems don't have the variety of body choices either, I can pair an OM-D with a Pana GM to keep a second lens ready at all times with almost no loss in IQ... That means a lot to me, in conjunction with some of the smaller system lenses it makes for an ultra versatile system.
As much as I look forward to this camera and applaud many of its technical advances, I think it is still a mistake to restrict some of its key components to it.
For example, PDAF should trickle down to the other and lower models. It doesn't have to be the very same PDAF and insane continuous shooting as the EM1 mark II, but it can be what you have on the EM1 mark I 3 years ago or something like that.
It's fallacy to claim only stubborn 43 DSLR users and pros have a use for such features, a soccer mom can also enjoy nailing shots of their kids with increased accuracy and speed. I consider it a great missed opportunity that the upcoming EPL8, as pretty as it looks, isn't all that much different than the EPL7 before it, and then the EPL6 or the EPL5. PDAF could have been something a little more thrilling.
Agreed, but who knows what a coming "below the E-M1"-OM-D may give? It has happened before that new advanced features have arrived in a camera below the "highest" model. Think hi res fex, and it may be possible that a simpler pdaf version could be entered in some of or one of the future models below the top one.
On the soo many PEN´s all too high similarity I think the same as you do...
I agree and maybe they will have some of these features in the E-M5iii/E-M10iii and Pen F ii. I certainly am interested in PDAF on all my future Olympus camera options.
Agree with PDAF focusing. It made a certain amount of sense at the initial launch of the OMD line, when PDAF was percieved as a sop to the 4/3s DSLR users. But now, PDAF is starting to be percieved as desirable in its own right.
The advantage to those of us who use 4/3 lesnes and other OMD cameras is a happy side benefit.
Which is why I've kept my PL5 and often use it alongside my OM5II, Small, discrete -especially with the 12f2 and 45f1.8 and still quite capable Especially with Panasonic now grudgingly adding in-body IS to some of its cameras, Four Thirds is really becoming a large and comprehensive system.
Agreed, you can argue this trickle down will 'obviously' happen and with the Oly of old it would've, the Oly of today is behaving more like the Pana of old tho. Both the E-M5 II AND the PEN-F came out well AFTER the E-M1, with no OSPDAF. Meanwhile Panasonic has released nearly half a dozen bodies with DFD...
I own an E-M5 II, GM1, and GF6 btw, before anyone calls me a fan boy for either brand. I still picked the E-M5 II over the GX8 over other reasons (size, shutter shock, unique features), but some form of PDAF on smaller Oly bodies is long overdue. It'll be interesting to find out more info about how this sensor was sourced.
Whats with all of these (I assume?) DSLR users telling us how "big" the E-M1 is? Seriously folks, I can only ask if you have ever even used an E-M1/12-40 combo and a D810/24-70 combo?
I have all of Olympus' flagship 4/3 DSLRs (and then some) and Oly's m4/3 flagship cameras (EM1, EM5) all with grips. I also shoot FF digital (with grip) and have plenty of 35mm film bodies too. My first thought when seeing the video was how large the camera appeared. What's with that?
Any flagship body needs all the same things regardless of sensor size, so of course it's 'the same size'. Otherwise, only small handed people could use MFT and wouldn't have any advanced controls. Wouldn't be fair would it.
I did own a E-5 and THAT was a large camera. Compared to it, the E-M1 (which I now own) and the new E-M1 mk2 is really to be looked upon as compact, even though they are a bit larger than the two E-M5 versions. The grip make them perhaps look a bit larger than they actually feel in ones hand (not having held the Mk2 E-M1, ok) The grip was a big good thing! In part it was what made me get the E-M;, feels much better to handle than the E-M5 with it´s add on grip!!!
The "tactical" marketing mistake was to show the camera with the attached battery grip. They SHOULD have shown it compared to an ACSC equivalent DSLR and a FF DSLR and WITHOUT that grip.
People who want and need grips already understand they add size and weight to the camera.
@ Mike99999 - Yes, I have actually. Long time Nikon shooter and if you think that a D810/24-70 combo is in the same size/weight category as a E-M1/14-40 then there is nothing I can say to change your mind. I might ask you to share whatever drugs you are on though...
I actually did try - intending to buy - a Nikon D800 with that lens mounted and very quickly changed my mind. He loved my Em-1 and now uses a growing Olympus and Panasonic system alongside a shrinking Nikon one, He'll likely be keeping that particular Nikon setup, but has sold his lower range "plastic" Nikon lenses, as he calls them, in favour of mainly the "PRO" series.
Oly isn't particularly great at marketing their situational size advantages, and many of their lens designs (most recent and older zooms I'd say, outside the 9-18) don't seem to go for small to the degree that Panasonic often does... Luckily they both coexist in the same system and Oly still has a whole line of even smaller bodies along with smaller grip accessories.
Just saw the size comparison posted here. It's bigger as my old Canon 350D! However if it's as good as Olympus are boosting and is priced sensibly I'll still be very interested.
I did own the EOS 350D, and it was nice but its grip is way worse shape/size wise, and quite a bit less nice to hold than the grip of the E-M1 I now have. The EOS 350D grip is too small, even though notably better than fex the diminutive "grip" of the Olympus E-600...
When shooting with the 70-200/4L I had, the 350D felt not wholly perfect, although a good camera at its price level at the time it was sold.,..
The hardware in this looks very nice, even though it seems to be drifting towards big-camera territory. I'll look forward to seeing if there are significant UI/menu improvements. DPR has described Olympus' menus as somewhere between train-wreck and nightmare (not exactly their words) for a long time now.
Olympus menus are comprehensive. They expose an enormous number of options and customization points. It's a bit daunting, but it's hardly a "train wreck"...
Sony's aren't much better, Panasonic's are far better to the uninitiated... Oly's aren't actually that bad once you've gotten used to them, which sounds like a cliche or like I'm making excuses for them, but I'm actually not...
Their biggest problem isn't necessarily their organisational logic, it a actually makes sense once you get it and I'm not sure you could simplify it much given the vast degree of customisation they offer compared to others...
Their biggest issue are actually the basics. The iconography and description of many many items is totally non-descrip or uselessly vague. If they cleaned a lot of that up they wouldn't need a total menu overhaul like some people want, and it'd take a lot less time.
Eh. GH5 doesn't really need to top this, it just needs to be marginally better than the GH4. The difference between Panasonic and Olympus flagships is pretty trivial at this point. More about which body and UI you like better. The creative output at the end of the day is so similar it doesn't really matter, especially now with Olympus reaching parity in video.
I love the specs on this new OMD, but I'd probably buy the GH5 anyway because I like the controls and UI more.
I think that Panasonic and Olympus are equally standing. Panasonic has the upper hand with video but Olympus cameras are much better suited to still frame photography.
Probably, but the video is so good on the GH4 any increase is going to be pretty marginal, really. Some extra crop room, better low light, etc.. it's all edge cases. Best possible improvement I could actually imagine would be a better pre-amp for the mic input. Would be nice to get clean audio out of 3.5mm mics without an additional pre-amp or gain boost.
These cameras are kind of approaching perfection IMO. Unless there is a huge increase in screen size and pixel density I'm not sure where they can improve. Better dynamic range, maybe? Still pretty marginal.
Looking for a successor to my Pana GH2, both GH5 and E-M1 II are in the race. But the crucial point is the IBIS (In-Body Image Stabilizer) of the Olympus.
Why? I do macro photography with manual vintage lenses. IBIS would be of great help.
So far, Panasonic did neither deny nor confirm such a stabilizer in their announced GH5.
BTW: If the Fuji X-T2 had better video capabilities and IBIS, I would consider it due to the larger format (APS-C and without mirror -> I could use lens adapters) - nice camera in classic style.
I did some more research (at times it's difficult maintaining an overview of all those cameras) and must say: You are right - the video capabilities of this new model are improved and seem good - "4k"-UHD up to 30 fps and FullHD up to 60 fps.
The data rate of 100 Mbit/sec for both UHD and FHD is ok, if it's IPB (frames saved in groups) instead of all-i (frames saved as single ones, which needs more space).
Some things to consider for video anyway (if I'm not mistaken): No phones socket (but on the optional grip), no touch screen, no image stabilizier in the camera.
We have to wait for first tests which will show whether moiré is an issue or rolling shutter artifacts (the faster the sensor readout and image processor, the less rolling shutter).
The GH5 will still remain the video king - Panasonic is a professional video company.
In between the Olympus E-M1 II with its biggest asset (for me): The IBIS stabilizer - if the GH5 won't have one, I might go for Olympus.
You need FULL FRAME sensor or even bigger 70%, fully articulated HD touch screen and lens can be fixed super zoom like compact cameras has bur lens will be wide . 4K and time lapse will be great too without frames limit to make long time lapses. With huge sensor ISO will very high in auto mode for night pictures without flash .
I really would have liked an answer to the question of whether the on-sensor PDAF now also works with m43 lenses (on the Mark I it was limited to 4/3 lenses). I would suppose it now is also used with m43 lenses, but a confirmation would be nice.
And that really isn't a limitation. Single point af with cdaf has been as fast or faster than pdaf for a few years now. Phase detection only maintains an advantage in continuous focus and tracking. Single point goes to cdaf all day long though (works better and faster in low light and is equally fast in good light)
"4/3 was limited to only working with PDAF" is not completely true. The FT-lenses work on all mFT cameras but with inferior AF-performance. All but the oldest FT cameras have live view (olympus was first with live view in DSLR) and the lenses do autofocus in live view. In fact the FT lenses do faster af on most mFT bodys than on FT in live view.
I didn't claim that "4/3 was limited to only working with PDAF". I claimed the inverse, that "PDAF was only used with 4/3 lenses" (which I later corrected in that PDAF was also used with m43 lenses in continuous AF).
No, brycesteiner did. "4/3 was limited to only working with PDAF". But all 4/3 cameras since the E-330 in 2006 had live view with working AF and obvously no PDAF. AF in live view was working but very slow. And so it is on m4/3 with no PDAF.
15 years ago the film guys asked the same question.
With new tchnology comes confusion. I can take months to work out the menu on a new camera and master all the little things that prevent a sharp capture. Leica kept it simple.
Bigger bodies for all the controls and dials.. with smaller sensors? Sorry guys, I'm still not over this interview. This is a very nice camera.. but for the working professional.. really? Is it?
It's easy to claim the Japanese companies will meet their doom (tho I seriously doubt the big two, or the 4 big mirrorless players, will ALL be gone)... It's trickier to suggest what would supplant them, and no, phones by themselves and in their current form factor wouldn't.
Have my hopes up. Hoping the AF will be at a level where I can move to a smaller platform. Personally, I am actively starting to sell off allot of my Canon gear thinking this will be more than enough for me to fuel my hobby. Fingers crossed.
Well, if shutter speed is a problem, and of course it can be in certain situations, then it is back to the bracketing and using software - which tends to offer better results since more options to fine tune to your liking.
I do not have an Olympus but i may move over to them in early 2017 due to the many wonderful features they offer that Fuji does not. I am hoping that their new processor might offer a better quality in-camera HDR than currently exists. That would be wonderful.
@Mike, I'll forward the query on to Eric once I'm back in the states and have had some sleep :) Will be a day or two. Sorry for the lack of a response, it's been a very long week.
@kiwiross; Can your EM1.M1 shoot HDR at any ISO setting for HDR1 and HDR2?
I like to use HDR1 (or HDR2) as it takes 4 shoots, and the EV difference is set by camera (?) based what camera "see"(?). But I'm not sure why Olympus looks down the ISO for HD1 and HDR2.
EM5.M2 can change ISO in Manual HDR mode, but I have to go into Menu to set how many shoots, and the different EV between shoots first. The Olympus Menu system is not easy to use.
Just checked and the EM1.M1 is the same as the EM5 for HDR1 and HDR2 both ISO200. When I shot HDR I do it in the manual settings and post process using Photomatrix. Apologies for the mis-understanding of your earlier post.
I am not sure about Abobe or OpticsPro. You could also use the Google Nik Collection. It does a pretty good job of HDR as well as a number of other functions and best of all it is free.
While we're at it, did anyone check whether it enables EC with auto ISO in Manual like the PEN-F? No need for a dedicated dial with the 2x2 switch... I'm glad it's still there, hoping it's been put to better use!
If you pitch an M43 camera as being small and super fast I wouldn't show it looking like a D5 with huge f1.2 lenses. The whole setup seems to be the size of a d810. I am not sure if the iso is good enough for sports either. Other than that is a fantastic piece of hardware.
The Em-1 works just fine for sports. I use it regularly even for high school football games in the dark and my pictures usually outsell the other photographers with the other brand gear without any problem. It's more about knowing how to use your equipment rather than the equipment itself.
As presented the camera is the size of a D810 end of story. Bry, please try to come up with a rational reason why a tiny m43 would not be less than ideal for sports since it captures 2 stops less light. Even something like: "it's so tiny I can sneak it in my purse at no-photo events and allows me to capture the forbidden shot". It would be a less boring argument.
@Photomedium 'As presented the camera is the size of a D810 end of story'
You mean that even though the D810 is 9% larger in width, 36% taller in height, 18% greater in depth, has approx twice the cubic volume and, for what it's worth, is roughly twice the weight, they are the same size??
You cannot argue for the grip, as you haven't added the D810 grip into your calcs.
Why don't you just say you were wrong, because you made the claim without researching it properly?
I agree with you other two statements about ISO and it being a fantastic piece of hardware though.
@lardinio oh for for sht sake! Did you watch the video? Does the camera have the grip and a huge lens, IN THAT VIDEO? As presented. But please since I am wrong, don't let my little post detract you from enjoying your tiny, but ballsy, little camera.
>>Bry, please try to come up with a rational reason why a tiny m43 would not be less than ideal for sports since it captures 2 stops less light. Even something like: "it's so tiny I can sneak it in my purse at no-photo events and allows me to capture the forbidden shot". It would be a less boring argument.<<
Why do I need a rational for something I've been doing for years successfully? Nothing more needs as for why.
To help you use yours here is the info: I use 1.8 primes to 2.8 40-150 zoom. It works well and I shoot wide open. I move to where the action is, focus quick and the shot is taken. I shoot ISO 800-1000 at night football games with the 1.8 lenses at 1/400 shutter. Clean and easy compared to the > ISO 4000 on the others.
@photomedium. Funny thing is I don't have this camera. I have a D700! I may buy it, looks good. Either that or a GX8, cause lugging round the Nikon to shoot absolutely everything, even for a nice walk, is tiring.
In a battle of two Micro Four Thirds flagships, which ranks supreme? We take a feature-by-feature look at the Panasonic G9 and Olympus E-M1 II's to compare their strengths and weaknesses.
The Japanese Camera Journal Press Club has awarded Olympus three out of its four annual prizes after voting by photographic magazine editors and readers.
Olympus has released a major firmware update for two of its OM-D cameras as well as the PEN-F. It adds support for Profoto's TTL flash system and also brings numerous new features and bug fixes. Read more
The blooming of University of Washington's cherry blossom trees is an annual Seattle tradition – and a challenging photographic subject. But we don't back down from a challenge. See video
During this year's CP+ show in Yokohama, we made time to sit down with senior executives from several major manufacturers. One of them was Mr. Masamichi Handa, head of Olympus's Imaging Business Division. Read more
No Nikon camera we've tested to date balances stills and video capture as well as the Nikon Z7. Though autofocus is less reliable than the D850, Nikon's first full-frame mirrorless gets enough right to earn our recommendation.
Nikon's Coolpix P1000 has moved the zoom needle from 'absurd' to 'ludicrous,' with an equivalent focal length of 24-3000mm. While it's great for lunar and still wildlife photography, we found that it's not suited for much else.
As a stills camera the Fujifilm X-T3 is a pleasant update to one of our favorite APS-C cameras, significantly improving the autofocus. If you're interested in stills and video, though, it's knockout.
The Nikon Z7 is slated as a mirrorless equivalent to the D850, but it can't subject track with the same reliability as its DSLR counterpart. AF performance is otherwise good, except in low light where hunting can lead to missed shots.
The Canon EOS R is the first full frame mirrorless camera to use the new RF mount. We're well underway putting it through our range of standard tests – take a look at how it compares to the competition and our thoughts on using it so far.
What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.
Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.
Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.
Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Nikon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.
What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.
Nikon USA has announced that its Z6 full-frame mirrorless camera will be shipping Friday, November 16th at a price of $1999 body-only and $2599 with the Nikkor Z 24-70 F4 S lens.
The Insta360 One X is the company's latest consumer 360-degree camera, supporting 5.7K video, including excellent image stabilization, as well as 18MP photos. And, in our experience, it's a really fun camera to use.
ON1 Photo RAW 2019 brings an updated interface, more powerful Lightroom migration, better camera/lens support, and more to ON1's flagship editing program.
Experiencing life through the lens of a camera might mean you miss out on special moments, warns Casey Cavanaugh as he shoots a short film through the viewfinder of his Hasselblad 500CM
The New York Times has teamed up with Google to start the process of digitizing more than five million photos stored in a vault nicknamed "the morgue."
Ambitious goals, new challenges and looking ahead to 100 years of the Z mount – we spoke with senior executives and engineers at Nikon about what lies ahead.
After years focused primarily on landscapes, Erez Marom leapt on an opportunity to return to his roots in wildlife photography. A trip to the mountains of Uganda photographing endangered mountain gorillas yielded some stunning photos – and an experience of a lifetime.
Digital cameras have made it incredibly easy to do time-lapse photography, thanks to the ability to take hundreds—or even thousands—of photos without interruption. This week, Chris and Jordan walk us through the process of planning and shooting compelling time-lapse videos.
The Nikon Z6 is the lower-resolution, faster sibling to the Z7, and has already shown impressive results in our preliminary testing. Take a look at how it performs outside of the studio.
Photopea is a free Photoshop alternative that works directly in the browser and offers advanced features including spot removal, clone tool, layers, filters, and masks.
Since publishing our full review, we've continued shooting with the Fujifilm X-T3 here and there – sometimes on assignment, and sometimes because we just like it so darn much. Our sample gallery has been updated with fresh images.
Flickr has announced that it will not delete images from its Creative Commons or Flickr Commons collections and is working hand-in-hand with institutions and non-profits to "keep these photos safe and available for the world to view and enjoy."
Comments