Olympus OM-D E-M5, E-M1, E-M10 - Mk1, Mk2 & Mk3 Owners Thread

woof woof said:
Just wondered if you guys here had seen this northern lights thread at DPR...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3345001

It's one in the eye for those who say that this subject can't be captured without a Canon 1D body of some description and a Zeiss lens.

I'd love to see and shoot this one day, there's a cruise I keep looking at :D
Click to expand...

Wow, that's stunning!!! Sure looks pro class to me and all in a tiny package, as you say no need for dinosaur DSLR for most landscape work anymore!
 
woof woof said:
Just wondered if you guys here had seen this northern lights thread at DPR...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3345001

It's one in the eye for those who say that this subject can't be captured without a Canon 1D body of some description and a Zeiss lens.

I'd love to see and shoot this one day, there's a cruise I keep looking at :D
Click to expand...

Woah - just saw this woof - incredible colours - reminds me of the day of the triffids. Thanks for sharing.


savvy249 said:
That's interesting Alan.

You've got that range covered with your primes; is it just for convenience, a single walkabout lens?
Click to expand...

I guess so - as much as I enjoy the m43 stuff, the portability and compactness of it, I get a little irrate changing lenses all the time - I also love primes for their sharpness, iq, size and wide apertures but it is so much easier with one walkabout lens than having 4 different ones swapping all the time.

Trouble is, whilst not huge or heavy, the 12-35 is bigger than the other lenses I have.

Been reading the rx100 thread with interest recently - but then I'd end up with another camera not being used :shrug:
 
bl0at3r said:
Woah - just saw this woof - incredible colours - reminds me of the day of the triffids. Thanks for sharing.

I guess so - as much as I enjoy the m43 stuff, the portability and compactness of it, I get a little irrate changing lenses all the time - I also love primes for their sharpness, iq, size and wide apertures but it is so much easier with one walkabout lens than having 4 different ones swapping all the time.

Trouble is, whilst not huge or heavy, the 12-35 is bigger than the other lenses I have.

Been reading the rx100 thread with interest recently - but then I'd end up with another camera not being used :shrug:
Click to expand...

If u get the rx100 the OMD may not get used :(
 
bl0at3r said:
I guess so - as much as I enjoy the m43 stuff, the portability and compactness of it, I get a little irrate changing lenses all the time - I also love primes for their sharpness, iq, size and wide apertures but it is so much easier with one walkabout lens than having 4 different ones swapping all the time.

Trouble is, whilst not huge or heavy, the 12-35 is bigger than the other lenses I have.

Been reading the rx100 thread with interest recently - but then I'd end up with another camera not being used :shrug:
Click to expand...
I hear what you're saying, but you have the P20 which is smack in the middle of that zoom's range, and is coat-pocketable on the OM-D.

You may remember on a recent day out, I had the P20 on my camera, and forgot to put the O45 in my other pocket. I was out for the whole afternoon with just this. Yes, I had to zoom with my feet a bit more, but it made it all the more enjoyable, I didn't even think about not having the O45, and I got some real keepers.

As you say, the zoom is bigger/heavier than anything you have, and you are thinking about an rx100 because of it's portability (don't go there).

I'd think long and hard about investing hard-earned money on that zoom, which may at the end of the day get left in the bag because it is (relatively) big & cumbersome, when you have something good already, plus the flexibility of your other lenses when you really need them.

Just my 2p worth - if you want to spend, then spend !!!
 
Last edited:
ShrubMonkey said:
I have both, love both, use both.
Click to expand...

What lens u got for your omd :)

What the rx100 like for macro and indoor?
 
rookies said:
What lens u got for your omd :)

What the rx100 like for macro and indoor?
Click to expand...


Samyang 7.5mm
Panasonic 7-14mm
Panasonic Leica 25mm
Olympus 45mm
Panasonic 100-300mm
Canon FD 50mm
Canon FD 70-210mm

Rx100 fine indoors for what I've used it for, macro no idea, not used it for that
 
Last edited:
bl0at3r said:
Makes perfect sense Les - thanks :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Guessing you going get a rx100 then?
 
bl0at3r said:
nope - the bit about the primes made perfect sense
Click to expand...

:)

I've got

Kit lens
40-150. Love it might sell to get 100-300
45mm oly
Soon 60mm macro

Might add a 14mm then I be happy
 
savvy249 said:
Hi Andrew,

Click on My name, go to Profile, and click on the Camera Bag tab :)
Click to expand...

Why did I just not think of that :bang::bang::bang:

Anyway lovely kit you got there jeez.. How do you rate the Oly 17mm Ive been inkling over it and the panny 14mm. Then again Oly coming out with a new 17mm next year so might wait for that.

Reverse adaptor for Macro which lens you use that on and does it do a good job? which one did you get as I use to have one when I had the canon 40D
 
rookies said:
Why did I just not think of that :bang::bang::bang:

Anyway lovely kit you got there jeez.. How do you rate the Oly 17mm Ive been inkling over it and the panny 14mm. Then again Oly coming out with a new 17mm next year so might wait for that.

Reverse adaptor for Macro which lens you use that on and does it do a good job? which one did you get as I use to have one when I had the canon 40D
Click to expand...
I liked the 17mm and got some great keepers from it. It was my only prime for a while and was on my E-PL3 all the time. It is a very underrated lens, and highly regarded by many people. In fact the new 17mm you mention has got very disappointing reviews and not the quantum leap many people were expecting. Indeed, lots of people who have tried it have said it is not going to be worth the money to upgrade.

Having said that, even though I still like its qualities, I never use it now as it is so close in length to my 20mm which is just a superb lens.

I got a cheap reversing adapter off eBay which was the correct filter size for my F.Zuiko 50mm f/1.8. It works OK'ish, but is quite fiddly to work with, there is no focussing at all, and I don't do much with it now. It was OK for playing around, but if I was serious about macro, I would either get a dedicated macro lens - too expensive for me given that I have only ever dabbled in macro, get some extension tubes, or get a Raynox 150 or 250 for my 40-150. Probably the last option, I've seen some good images using the Raynoxes.

HTH.


Les
 
Last edited:
savvy249 said:
I liked the 17mm and got some great keepers from it. It was my only prime for a while and was on my E-PL3 all the time. It is a very underrated lens, and highly regarded by many people. In fact the new 17mm you mention has got very disappointing reviews and not the quantum leap many people were expecting. Indeed, lots of people who have tried it have said it is not going to be worth the money to upgrade.

Having said that, even though I still like its qualities, I never use it now as it is so close in length to my 20mm which is just a superb lens.

I got a cheap reversing adapter off eBay which was the correct filter size for my F.Zuiko 50mm f/1.8. It works OK'ish, but is quite fiddly to work with, there is no focussing at all, and I don't do much with it now. It was OK for playing around, but if I was serious about macro, I would either get a dedicated macro lens - too expensive for me given that I have only ever dabbled in macro, get some extension tubes, or get a Raynox 150 or 250 for my 40-150. Probably the last option, I've seen some good images using the Raynoxes.

HTH.


Les
Click to expand...

Since you own the Oly 17mm and the Panny 20mm Which do you prefer and which focus faster?
 
rookies said:
Since you own the Oly 17mm and the Panny 20mm Which do you prefer and which focus faster?
Click to expand...
Prefer? The P20 every time, it is sharper than the O17 by quite a bit, and at f/1.7 vs f/2.8, usable in much lower lighting conditions.

The P20 can hunt for focus sometimes in certain low light conditions, but I haven't found it causing me to miss any shots.

Now that I've thought about it, I may sell my O17, and also the smaller kit zoom O14-42mm Mk II, as I'm just not using them.

That would make me quite light with P20, O45, & O40-150, excluding my legacy kit. Maybe, ideally, I should have something around the 12/14mm length but, right now, I'm not feeling the need for it.
 
Guys a test for u all. I've come across a colour production problem. When taking images in raw such as a orangey jumper or subject does it appear the correct colour in your raw converter preferable aperture? As I have adobe Lightroom which does it better than aperture.
 
Last edited:
savvy249 said:
Prefer? The P20 every time, it is sharper than the O17 by quite a bit, and at f/1.7 vs f/2.8, usable in much lower lighting conditions.

The P20 can hunt for focus sometimes in certain low light conditions, but I haven't found it causing me to miss any shots.

Now that I've thought about it, I may sell my O17, and also the smaller kit zoom O14-42mm Mk II, as I'm just not using them.

That would make me quite light with P20, O45, & O40-150, excluding my legacy kit. Maybe, ideally, I should have something around the 12/14mm length but, right now, I'm not feeling the need for it.
Click to expand...

Hmmm think I need test them first then decide.
 
rookies said:
Guys a test for u all. I've come across a colour production problem. When taking images in raw such as a orangey jumper or subject just it appear the correct colour in your raw converter preferable aperture? As I have adobe Lightroom does it better than aperture.
Click to expand...

:thinking::shrug::thinking:
 
bl0at3r said:
:thinking::shrug::thinking:
Click to expand...

Sorry what I am trying say does your software show the images correct colour from raw before processing if so which u using?
 
rookies said:
Sorry what I am trying say does your software show the images correct colour from raw before processing if so which u using?
Click to expand...
Yes, I use LR4 with the Huelight colour profiles for my OM-D & E-PL3. The colours are then more "Olympus JPEG" like as a starting point before PP. The Adobe profile isn't bad, and I wouldn't say the colours are "Wrong" in the way you are implying with your Aperture setup, but the Huelight profile is subtley better IMO.
 
savvy249 said:
Yes, I use LR4 with the Huelight colour profiles for my OM-D & E-PL3. The colours are then more "Olympus JPEG" like as a starting point before PP. The Adobe profile isn't bad, and I wouldn't say the colours are "Wrong" in the way you are implying with your Aperture setup, but the Huelight profile is subtley better IMO.
Click to expand...

Have you ever used aperture. In all honesty the image in LR or just how they should be without having to edit but in Aperture they are wrong.... I never notice until I got Lightroom.

How you get the Huelight Colour Profile
 
rookies said:
Have you ever used aperture. In all honesty the image in LR or just how they should be without having to edit but in Aperture they are wrong.... I never notice until I got Lightroom.

How you get the Huelight Colour Profile
Click to expand...
Nope, never used Aperture, it's a Mac app, right? I'm a Windows user.

You get Huelight Colour profiles here, they used to be free a while ago, but they are $10 now, well worth it IMO. http://www.colorfidelity.com/

Here are some threads, with images, from mu-43 - have a good read to see if you think they are worth it for LR/PS (not available for Aperture).

http://www.mu-43.com/f42/huelight-olympus-acr-lightroom-profiles-available-26298/

http://www.mu-43.com/f92/huelight-c...us-panasonic-micro-four-thirds-cameras-26305/

http://www.mu-43.com/f92/huelight-color-profiles-lightroom-acr-available-10-purchase-33905/

And no, I can't help you with install help on a Mac for LR, if you do decide to get them, I've never, ever, used a Mac, apart from out in the rain :D
 
Here you go guys here a compare both not been edited at all just straight out of camera into LR and Aperture. The LR is more to true life colour bit odd how aperture made it red

This is the Lightroom Version


PC020001.jpg by Rooky5, on Flickr

This is the Aperture Version


PC020001 by Rooky5, on Flickr
 
That is interesting Andrew, I might well look into this and see how mine preforms as I shoot raw.
 
Just had a play/test and aperture is a little more saturated and warmer then lightroom. if you change the Saturate to 0.9 and move WB to 0.40 using skin tone they are very close. Lightroom is more orangey in the reds against aperture. I guess you pays your money and takes your choice.
 
Ajophotog said:
Just had a play/test and aperture is a little more saturated and warmer then lightroom. if you change the Saturate to 0.9 and move WB to 0.40 using skin tone they are very close. Lightroom is more orangey in the reds against aperture. I guess you pays your money and takes your choice.
Click to expand...

Thanks but the LR images is almost identical to the colour having the jumper in front of me :)
 
rookies said:
Thanks but the LR images is almost identical to the colour having the jumper in front of me :)
Click to expand...

Do you calibrate you screen too as this also adds to the mix. Then the printed finished article can turn out different again depending on ink and printer. :lol: I try not to get caught up too much in it all else it can and will drive you insane. :D I use a calibrated monitor and adjust the image to how I like it and leave it at that.
 
Ajophotog said:
Do you calibrate you screen too as this also adds to the mix. Then the printed finished article can turn out different again depending on ink and printer. :lol: I try not to get caught up too much in it all else it can and will drive you insane. :D I use a calibrated monitor and adjust the image to how I like it and leave it at that.
Click to expand...

My monitor and printer are both calibrated :) and printing from Lightroom is true to life than aperture straight from camera raw. Hmmmmm
 
rookies said:
My monitor and printer are both calibrated :) and printing from Lightroom is true to life than aperture straight from camera raw. Hmmmmm
Click to expand...
Sounds like you should bin aperture then to me.
 
I dug out my OMD today and thought id try out some strobist type captures which isn't something im too clued up on yet :suspect:
Here's one of my Christmasy captures from only a few i took today


Also there's some difference in colours on that jumper above im surprised how much there is.
 
Last edited:
The 9fps burst rate is fantastic for HDR, this is 7 exposures handheld and merged together for HDR image

8245585910_3944fc2b54_c.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top