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

David blows everyone away... ;)
 
Indeed, I'm fricken awesome. :D

TBH, i think it is where i went wrong. I went with a few primes. If i had gone for the zoom i think i may have felt differently. The e-m1 would be my choice if i ever went m43 again. I think the e-m10 was just too small for me. Having said that, I'd probably go Fuji if i were to go for a csc system again.
 
minnnt said:
Indeed, I'm fricken awesome. :D

TBH, i think it is where i went wrong. I went with a few primes. If i had gone for the zoom i think i may have felt differently. The e-m1 would be my choice if i ever went m43 again. I think the e-m10 was just too small for me. Having said that, I'd probably go Fuji if i were to go for a csc system again.
Click to expand...
ARGHT you drive me Nut lol

As i am still torn between Fuji Oly and sony lol

Which Fuji would you have if you went CSC again
 
:LOL: thought you may say that. :D

Don't let other people influence you. I listened to Damian once, cost me a bloody fortune and alot of faffing around to boot!

But I'd probably go

X-T1 and 16-55 f2.8... But thats £1600 right there which won't be happening soon unless i flog all my gear which i cba to do atm.
 
What your current camera at the moment pal... Have what M43 have you had and which Fuji sounds like you had tons of cameras lol
 
Right it depend on your budget.

1st Fuji XE-2 with the 18-55mm F2.8-4
2nd Olympus EM-1 with the 16-40mm F2.8

Not Sony at the moment,for its the lack of lens in it line up (n)
 
Llamaman said:
Then sell it to me.
Then buy another one.

Both would break.
Click to expand...

Knowing when to sell is key... :D

rookies said:
What your current camera at the moment pal... Have what M43 have you had and which Fuji sounds like you had tons of cameras lol
Click to expand...

No, i haven't had a Fuji csc, but if i went for one it would be the xt.

I had a d7000 with 17-55 2.8, 35mm f1.8 and an 85 1.8. Traded that in for the e-m10 and 14-42ez along with 25mm f1.8, 45mm f1.8 and the 40-150R (cheap one, not the pro version). Didn't gel with it so sold up and bought a d7100 and siggy 18-35mm f1.8.

Merry-go-round...
 
minnnt said:
:LOL: thought you may say that. :D

Don't let other people influence you. I listened to Damian once, cost me a bloody fortune and alot of faffing around to boot!
Click to expand...

Blah blah blah. The bit you missed was my awesomeness. You naively thought you could change systems and be fab like what I is. Den you realise dat is never happ'nin' ( I've turned into Ali G / a meerkat )

And you have GAS. You tried olympus for like 5 shots...

:D

PS.:love::hug:
 
Nah, Sony's where it's at, with all that lovely Zeiss glass...

[/stirring]
 
Llamaman said:
Nah, Sony's where it's at, with all that lovely Zeiss glass...

[/stirring]
Click to expand...

I often toyed with the idea of Sony especially with the new A7 MKII but I like my zooms as well as my primes.
After investigating the Sony line up, the examples I've seen from the 24-70 f/4 just don't cut the mustard for me.
The 35 and 55 particularly look very nice though.
 
Greytop said:
I often toyed with the idea of Sony especially with the new A7 MKII but I like my zooms as well as my primes.
After investigating the Sony line up, the examples I've seen from the 24-70 f/4 just don't cut the mustard for me.
The 35 and 55 particularly look very nice though.
Click to expand...

Opinion on the 24-70mm seem to be divided but some people seem to be saying that it's very very good. I read an interesting piece on a blog a while ago and the guys point was that when a manufacturer who knows what they're doing makes a lens that splits opinion it's a lens he becomes interested in as it's possibly due to character.

I think that the 35 and 55 are very possibly amongst the best mass market lenses you can buy. I have the 55mm and it does seem to be a very good lens but... I'd actually like to see lenses which are not aiming to be amongst the very best you can buy. The advantage of being less good could be that they'll be cheaper and perhaps more characterful :D
 
Prob is Sony lens seem silly mony compare to Fuji?? Sony 55mm £800
 
But the size of the lens are LOL sony being bigger near enough Dslr size due to it full sensor?
 
Best go with Nikon 1 then. Or Pentax Q.

[/really not helping]
 
Nikon 1 aren't very good compare these we been talking about are they
 
But the point being that if you want compact you have to look at the WHOLE system, lens size is dictated by sensor size, ya cannae change the laws of physics.

Its all a compromise and the point of m4/3 is that for a lot of people its the sweet spot.

Besides, I've taken some lovely photos with Nikon 1 - I actually think they're very good for what they are.
 
Of course there are some exceptional lenses available for m43, I don't think you need to worry about that as a reason to avoid an OM-D.
 
woof woof said:
Opinion on the 24-70mm seem to be divided but some people seem to be saying that it's very very good. I read an interesting piece on a blog a while ago and the guys point was that when a manufacturer who knows what they're doing makes a lens that splits opinion it's a lens he becomes interested in as it's possibly due to character.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there are some people that like it Alan, some might call it characterful but from the many example shots I have seen it can't hold a candle to the Oly 12-40 at the short and long end (and I have taken my time to very seriously consider it).
And these are were some images from people that rated it too!
Then reading reviews very carefully from more the respected sites like Photozone confirmed my concerns. The big problem for me was that the 24-70 would be my 'go to' walk around solution, like the 12-40 is with my Oly bodies.
It just goes to show that glass is a key factor in decision making about a system, thankfully there are many fine lenses available for m4/3rds so I'm happy to stick where I am :)
I have added the trio of Merrills to my collection recently though, I have to say they are frankly amazing (when used in the sweet spot).
 
Last edited:
Well, I'd never heard of Merrill either... just off to see what on earth it is.

With regard to m43, it really does have one major advantage over other formats and thats simply that its not just one manufacturer - if you don't like the Olympus menus, ergonomics or whatever then try Panasonic, if Pany come out with a ground breaking feature you simply must have (like 4K if thats your bag) then just swap the body, or do a best of both worlds, the GH4 for video and say the M5 II for huge studio shots and the M10 for out and about, all using the same excellent glass.
 
Well, that was interesting- I personally would hate it, but the end result for landscape style looks very good.

 
rookies said:
Prob is Sony lens seem silly mony compare to Fuji?? Sony 55mm £800
Click to expand...

It's one of the worlds best AF lenses though. What's better? The Zeiss MF thingy and maybe the Sigma Art? Are they better in every way? Dunno. Maybe the Sony shdes them in some areas? Anyway, after those what's better? If you want a really top end lens and that lens is really top end then there's a price... it costs more. Actually there's probably another price... size and weight as if a lens is aiming to be top end it'll need heavy fancy glass, see the Zeiss and Sigma.

rookies said:
But the size of the lens are LOL sony being bigger near enough Dslr size due to it full sensor?
Click to expand...

As above, the Sony lenses seem to be aiming to be amongst the best mass market AF lenses you can buy and unfortunately that means added bulk. If you look at some of the cheaper, smaller and lighter Canon/Nikon lenses they are cheaper, smaller and lighter but they're also nowhere near as good.

Choices choices.

Personally I'd like to see less good lenses from Sony, not to crappy Canon 50mm f1.8 levels :D but maybe just aiming to be rather good rather than amongst the best ever tested.
 
Last edited:
Had a quick play with the 20mm 1.7 - there's absolutely no denying that it's damn sharp :o

It's also a little noisy ( whirry ) when focussing. Obviously that's compared with the silent m.zuiko lenses..

Will test it in low light later
 
Greytop said:
I'm sure there are some people that like it Alan, some might call it characterful but from the many example shots I have seen it can't hold a candle to the Oly 12-40 at the short and long end (and I have taken my time to very seriously consider it).
And these are were some images from people that rated it too!
Then reading reviews very carefully from more the respected sites like Photozone confirmed my concerns. The big problem for me was that the 24-70 would be my 'go to' walk around solution, like the 12-40 is with my Oly bodies.
It just goes to show that glass is a key factor in decision making about a system, thankfully there are many fine lenses available for m4/3rds so I'm happy to stick where I am :)
I have added the trio of Merrills to my collection recently though, I have to say they are frankly amazing (when used in the sweet spot).
Click to expand...

It's not a lens that I'm interested in but if you are and would care to read a positive review there's a link to one in the A7 owners thread.
 
woof woof said:
If you want a really top end lens and that lens is really top end then there's a price... it costs more. Actually there's probably another price... size and weight as if a lens is aiming to be top end it'll need heavy fancy glass...
Click to expand...

That certainly is true of the 12-40 Pro and by the look of it the 40-150 too.
 
just to add something about the 20mm noise...its noisy when the room is silent. I've brought it to the office where there are computers and lights buzzing and you cant hear it...

will hopefully look at the shots on my other laptop later
 
damianmkv said:
Had a quick play with the 20mm 1.7 - there's absolutely no denying that it's damn sharp :eek:

It's also a little noisy ( whirry ) when focussing. Obviously that's compared with the silent m.zuiko lenses..

Will test it in low light later
Click to expand...

I've had two of those, mk1 and the mk2 that I currently have, no difference between them that I can see... but the only thing to watch is that under some artificial lighting you can get 'oribble noise banding at higher ISO's. I'd read about this on line but never seen it once with my G1 but it only goes to ISO 3200. I've seen it with my GX7 at higher ISO's but it must be very lighting dependent as I can't reproduce it to order. Never seen it with my Oly 25mm f1.8 though.
 
The whirring is your GAS... if you listen very, very carefully, you'll hear it's a little voice saying "buymebuymebuymebuyme"

;)
 
damianmkv said:
B&W conversion and that's all of my happy son

Charlie by damianmkv, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Refresh me pls which camera that and lens?

I've got the EM1 with the pro lens at the moment for the weekend on the trail. And bleeping hell it really is a nice camera and such a sharp lens too can can focus quite close too which I am so amaze about.. If I want too bothered about the AF tracking put AF tracking to one side ie C-AF. Will I get the same sharp image on a em5 and a em10
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top