PDA

View Full Version : E-M1 Mark II is a breath of fresh air


Barr1e
31st December 2016, 09:27 AM
http://www.theverge.com/2016/12/30/14119814/olympus-e-m1-mark-ii-camera-review-photography-pro-capture


All the best for 2017


Regards. Barr1e (+ Anne of course)

Growltiger
31st December 2016, 11:03 AM
They used a traditional card (90MB/s) instead of a UHS II card (280MB/s) and then complained that it took a long time to write to the card.

They didn't mention that the camera can do video.

They didn't point out that the smaller sensor has the benefit that the lenses are far lighter and smaller compared to APS-C or FF. (So worth paying more for, for some of us.)

They complained at the number of images at 60fps but didn't say you can decide how many to take.

Apart from that not too poor an effort.

drmarkf
31st December 2016, 05:36 PM
An interesting read, but another resource that has yet to move their thinking on from "The m4/3 sensor is smaller than APSC & FF, so the output must be rubbish".

The two points they have not considered are "Of course it's not as 'good', but how good is good enough output for the purpose to which I'm actually going to put it?" and "The APSC & FF sensors are smaller than medium format, so they must be rubbish, too".

m4/3 images are progressively winning a higher and higher proportion of open, anonymised Projected Digital Image competitions in our large local camera club. That is an objective, real-life measure of quality that I rate higher than how 'good' the output looks at 100% in Lightroom.

Happy New Year, folks!

Goon525
31st December 2016, 07:14 PM
That's true here in Guildford too, Mark, where our club now has about 15 M43 users.

Grumpy Hec
1st January 2017, 10:21 AM
Yep - a growing number of M43 users in our club, Colchester, along with an increase in mirror-less generally.

I do well in the internal advanced section competitions and external comps. I got my CPAGB on M43. I intend to go for LRPS and possibly DPAGB this year and do not see M43 as anything other than an advantage as my camera is with me pretty much all the time so I'm more likely to get that "image". I also had some images in last years EAF exhibition all M43 and had comments on one particular print on the "incredible detail". So this perception that you have to have a larger sensor to achieve an acceptable quality is ancient history now unless you are doing work which requires really large prints and/or the superior SNR and dynamic range that the physics of sensor size govern.

It's about the right tools for the job and for me my Olympus camera's I own or have owned and used fit my aims extremely well. The reality is of course that the camera as a tool is more capable than I am and if I can just get that six inches behind the viewfinder to be as good as the few inches in front of it then I'll be on a roll.

Hec

drmarkf
1st January 2017, 12:44 PM
Yes, I agree with all of that, Hec.

I just got my CPAGB all on m4/3 as well, via DPI (which I discovered is a bit stressful because of the variability inherent in projection facilities! Nothing to do with m4/3).
It must also be said, from a comparison of image scores of several of us at the adjudication event in late November, that studio and wildlife images scored highly while street and architecture were marked ridiculously low!

So I'd say projection and judging vagaries were vastly more significant than the sensor size: worth also mentioning that my only two wildlife images, of antelope shot on game drives with the E-M1, 40-150 Pro + 1.4tc, both scored 24....

The next targets are to get a good printer and learn how to use it, and then try working up the RPS ladder as well.

I'm enjoying learning how to use the A7Rii, but so far I'd say its main contribution is providing files with a markedly wider dynamic range such that less fiddling time in PP is needed and I'll be doing less HDR. I doubt much significant final print quality improvement will be seen in the size of images needed for the RPS, and you'd certainly choose the E-M1 for shooting anything quickly!

I hear PDI competitions will be moving to 1920x1200, and I do wonder whether that might put a bit more stress on m4/3.

mack100
1st January 2017, 12:47 PM
The reviewer seems to state that he gets good images up to 5000 ISO. This is really interesting for me as I find I'm out in wooded areas most of the time and in winter lighting can be challenging.
I've made (for me anyway) a considerable investment in Olympus m4/3 but for birds/wildlife I still use 1DX and a long zoom. As excellent as this combination is I'd love to ditch it if only for the weight issue but my chief concerns for this new body are still CAF, tracking and high ISO.

drmarkf
1st January 2017, 01:22 PM
It's going to have to be very good indeed to win over dedicated bird photographers who are reasonably young and fit. For the likes of me, however, it will undoubtedly give an incentive in due course to have a go at it!

Going back to British Club Photography, as regards gear, the serious members of our 200-member club are splitting in to 3 main groups:

1. A handful of hard-core birders, sports & wildlife specialists who have stuck with 1Ds and the like for obvious reasons, and for whom the D500 is a radical innovation *yes

2. A group of general photographers who bought in to the Fuji mirrorless system 3 - 5 years ago and have now sold most of their Canikon gear.

3. The other group of general photographers who are keeping at least some of their Canikon kit and have added a separate Olympus kit. They use the former for landscape and sports, and m4/3 for travel, street and (increasingly) macro.

I'm only aware of 3 of us with A7Riis.

Imageryone
1st January 2017, 01:35 PM
This continuous denigration of 4/3rds and micro 4/3rds doesn't make a lot of sense ??????? :confused::confused::confused:

I am a great believer in " Horses for Courses" and I have yet to see a thread on any forum that states the following !!!!

The " Hassleblad "and " Leica " models take absolute " Rubbish " nature images !
Does anyone use these for nature work on a full time basis?

In 1973 I invested in a system, Olympus, which has supported me both professionally and personally ever since, and still does for the multifaceted work that I enjoy so much.

During the same period, I have seen and admired brilliant images from every make of imaging device out there, and the best shot , "IMHO" was taken from the top of the Empire State Building, by a 16 year old young lady, with a Fujifilm Instant disposable camera, it was so sharp you could read the " Taxi" signs on the car roofs. Maybe just one lens in many millions made, but she still has the enlargement on her wall 20 years later.

I sometimes wish the modern crop of photographers would look back at past masters and wonder how did they get that shot with the equipment available

drmarkf
1st January 2017, 02:25 PM
This continuous denigration of 4/3rds and micro 4/3rds doesn't make a lot of sense ??????? :confused::confused::confused:

I am a great believer in " Horses for Courses"...

Precisely.

Now, I don't suggest you go over there to sample it, but the Sony Full Frame forum on dpreview has some pervasive and irritating trolls whose whole life purpose seems to be to demonstrate that it is impossible to take a decent image with a m4/3 sensor. They spew out reams and reams of unnecessarily re-quoted posts going on and on about all sorts of technobabble, and quite often being rude to people who have the audacity to disagree politely. You can imagine how things have got with the launch of the E-M1ii, whose handling and speed makes the A7Rii look ridiculous (if that's all you're considering!).

Needless to say (since most people on the forum list their gear) none of these people actually have any experience of shooting m4/3. Their comments are all theoretically based, usually on-screen at 100%, and I very much doubt if any of them ever produces an image large enough to demonstrate the minutiae over which they obsess.

It's unfortunate because there are also some very knowledgeable and pleasant people over there (many of whom have a mix of FF and m4/3 kit) and I do dip in to relevant threads and learn a lot.

One just has to accept that there are some pretty daft & unpleasant people out there.

drmarkf
1st January 2017, 02:28 PM
While dipping in to said forum I recommend keeping this cartoon at the forefront of one's mind...

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

Ricoh
1st January 2017, 04:05 PM
This continuous denigration of 4/3rds and micro 4/3rds doesn't make a lot of sense ??????? :confused::confused::confused:

I am a great believer in " Horses for Courses" and I have yet to see a thread on any forum that states the following !!!!

The " Hassleblad "and " Leica " models take absolute " Rubbish " nature images !
Does anyone use these for nature work on a full time basis?

Someone mention a Leica ? :)

I'd imagine the RF to be inappropriate for nature photography, sport, and for anything involving moving targets. On the street however, it's a mean machine and almost unbeatable in terms of speed for capturing the human moment.

Horses for courses, use the appropriate tool for the job.

David M
1st January 2017, 04:25 PM
While dipping in to said forum I recommend keeping this cartoon at the forefront of one's mind...

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

It must be around a decade since I bothered with DickPimpleReview. And I came to the conclusion some time ago that life's too short to correct all the misinformation that's posted on the interweb these days.

Simon Bee
1st January 2017, 05:47 PM
DickPimpleReview

Classic! very apt :D:D

Simon Bee
1st January 2017, 05:49 PM
And I came to the conclusion some time ago that life's too short to correct all the misinformation that's posted on the interweb these days.

Yep, same here David.

Simon

Zuiko
1st January 2017, 05:57 PM
Yep - a growing number of M43 users in our club, Colchester, along with an increase in mirror-less generally.

I do well in the internal advanced section competitions and external comps. I got my CPAGB on M43. I intend to go for LRPS and possibly DPAGB this year and do not see M43 as anything other than an advantage as my camera is with me pretty much all the time so I'm more likely to get that "image". I also had some images in last years EAF exhibition all M43 and had comments on one particular print on the "incredible detail". So this perception that you have to have a larger sensor to achieve an acceptable quality is ancient history now unless you are doing work which requires really large prints and/or the superior SNR and dynamic range that the physics of sensor size govern.

It's about the right tools for the job and for me my Olympus camera's I own or have owned and used fit my aims extremely well. The reality is of course that the camera as a tool is more capable than I am and if I can just get that six inches behind the viewfinder to be as good as the few inches in front of it then I'll be on a roll.

Hec

Good luck with the LRPS, Hec, I'm sure you won't have any problems. Most of the pictures for mine were shot on a 10mp E-3 and at low ISO I could easily produce 16x12 inch prints of detailed landscapes. The sensor in my E-M5 is obviously much better (though now dated itself) but the only real advantage in IQ over the E-3 is it allows me to shoot at higher ISO.

My daughter will be starting a documentary photography degree course at university in September (she has an unconditional offer based on the quality of her portfolio) armed with her E-620. I asked her if she thought she needed an upgrade but she said she would prefer to stick with a camera she knows. For her it is all about the pictures and she has absolutely no interest in equipment. I gave her my 14-54mm lens but she prefers to use her 14-42mm because it is smaller and lighter.

David M
1st January 2017, 06:15 PM
Classic! very apt :D:D

I have to admit I 'borrowed' that from Deep Purple, one of the band members used it as a nickname for the band.

Grumpy Hec
1st January 2017, 07:26 PM
[QUOTE=drmarkf;402740]Yes, I agree with all of that, Hec.

I just got my CPAGB all on m4/3 as well, via DPI (which I discovered is a bit stressful because of the variability inherent in projection facilities! Nothing to do with m4/3).
It must also be said, from a comparison of image scores of several of us at the adjudication event in late November, that studio and wildlife images scored highly while street and architecture were marked ridiculously low!

So I'd say projection and judging vagaries were vastly more significant than the sensor size: worth also mentioning that my only two wildlife images, of antelope shot on game drives with the E-M1, 40-150 Pro + 1.4tc, both scored 24....

QUOTE]

The judging does tend to favour certain genre's even though the PAGB always state otherwise. Wildlife does tend to do well as does composite images of the fantasy style. To be fair some wildlife work is technically stunning although I personally tend to be unmoved as it is seldom original in terms of subject and/or composition. If I see another kingfisher with fish I may well scream out loud even though it may be a superbly taken image.

The reality is that all club photography, of which all PAGB distinctions form part, tends towards a certain style and content. It rarely rewards those who wish to experiment beyond that so if you go for your C, D or M you just have to play the game. Of late I'm moving towards trying something a little different and my marks have gone down in internal competitions but I've decided I'm going to stick with it and take the hit as they are the images I prefer to take these days.

Hec

Hec