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

srhmoto said:
Exciting times, but I can't shake the feeling that it is way overpriced (regardless of how good it is) for what is essentially a 300mm f4 lens, particularly when you look at the launch price of the Panny Leica 100-400mm announced at the same time........
Click to expand...
They are 2 very different lenses.

You'll need one of each!
 
Iiyama said:
A bit of advice...
I was going through some shots I took last year with my Em1 and 12-40 2.8 and noticed some artefacts on peoples skin as below. Im wondering is this is due to me over processing in PP which is very new to me. Or could it be due to a camera setting such as noise reduction etc. All advice appreciated.

EDIT: The forum does not show the problem as clear as I can see on my computer but I hope you get the idea (increased redness or freckles!)

Grooms and guests forehead
P9221351_zpsrxmu5pyh.jpg


Best Mans forehead.
P9221347_zps78aymnoc.jpg
Click to expand...

What software are you using?
 
Greytop said:
Hi Rob, the A7RII is a lovely camera but a word of caution about the 24-70 f/4. If you're expecting 12-40 performance (across frame sharpness throughout the focal range) I would caution you read some reputable reviews before signing on the dotted line.... or at least see if you can test one first.
Click to expand...
Thanks grey you are spot on , my dad has that lens and it's not great
The London camera exchange had an offer on today body for 1999 so I got it from there with a metabones v4 so I'm just deciding between the
Canon 24/70 F4
tAmron 24/70 f2.8

I'd like the canon 2.8 but it's a fortune, I think I,ll prob go canon as it's got a macro switch also... But let's see.
I also picked up a Nikon G to e mount adaptor so I can manually use my dads FX lens
 
snerkler said:
New lens for the flush m4/3 owners ;) (Sorry if it's been posted before but I've only just got the Olly newsletter ;))

http://www.olympus.co.uk/site/en/c/...x.html?olycmp=nw_2016-01-06_EU_OPR-300mm_More
Click to expand...

Yes, very interesting, but before I invest more £££ into my Oly setup I think I need to see what's coming with the EM1 successor. Of particular relevance to this lens is how much they improve the AF for sports and wildlife, which would need to be very good and comparable with peers to attract a lot of buyers for this lens, IMO.
 
Xenon54 said:
Yes, very interesting, but before I invest more £££ into my Oly setup I think I need to see what's coming with the EM1 successor. Of particular relevance to this lens is how much they improve the AF for sports and wildlife, which would need to be very good and comparable with peers to attract a lot of buyers for this lens, IMO.
Click to expand...
Yep it's a lot of cash, and well outside of my budget. But if I was forking out on a lens like this I'd want a decent AF system with it so there's no way I'd buy one for my EM5-II. I know folk were much happier with the EM1 AF after the recent upgrade, so I'd expect the EM1-II to be good.
 
Iiyama said:
A bit of advice...
I was going through some shots I took last year with my Em1 and 12-40 2.8 and noticed some artefacts on peoples skin as below. Im wondering is this is due to me over processing in PP which is very new to me. Or could it be due to a camera setting such as noise reduction etc. All advice appreciated.

EDIT: The forum does not show the problem as clear as I can see on my computer but I hope you get the idea (increased redness or freckles!)

Grooms and guests forehead
P9221351_zpsrxmu5pyh.jpg


Best Mans forehead.
P9221347_zps78aymnoc.jpg
Click to expand...

I find that in certain situations the red and orange channels are a touch strong for flushed people, using the camera calibration tool (set to natural or standard) in LR is also a good idea, I prefer it to the standard Adobe raw conversion.

WB looks a bit out on those shots too.

Also, take a look at this: https://www.mu-43.com/threads/how-t...h-iso-and-color-rendition-from-our-omd.76508/

It works well for me and use it as a default on import.
 
Nawty said:
I find that in certain situations the red and orange channels are a touch strong for flushed people, using the camera calibration tool (set to natural or standard) in LR is also a good idea, I prefer it to the standard Adobe raw conversion.

WB looks a bit out on those shots too.

Also, take a look at this: https://www.mu-43.com/threads/how-t...h-iso-and-color-rendition-from-our-omd.76508/

It works well for me and use it as a default on import.
Click to expand...
Thanks ill look and do that
 
snerkler said:
Yep it's a lot of cash, and well outside of my budget. But if I was forking out on a lens like this I'd want a decent AF system with it so there's no way I'd buy one for my EM5-II. I know folk were much happier with the EM1 AF after the recent upgrade, so I'd expect the EM1-II to be good.
Click to expand...

I think Oly have been going in the right direction over the last few years with respect to AF, but they still seem to slightly under invest in their software algorithms compared to other headline features. They clearly have some very innovative engineers (sensor shift, live composite, focus stacking etc) so I just wished they'd put their full attention into a kick-ass AF system. The Nikon 3D tracking has been one the leaders recently and it's likely got even better with the D5/D500, so Olympus need to compete with this if they're going to get large volumes of sales in the sports/wildlife segment. No matter how good the lens is (and it looks really really good), there's no point in having it without an equally capable camera behind it, regardless of how small and lightweight the set up is.
 
Those are some impressive stats with IS on - 100% of shots at 1/15s and 90% at 1/8s are good.

That said, it's too specific for me as I rarely shoot at 300mm
 
Xenon54 said:
I think Oly have been going in the right direction over the last few years with respect to AF, but they still seem to slightly under invest in their software algorithms compared to other headline features. They clearly have some very innovative engineers (sensor shift, live composite, focus stacking etc) so I just wished they'd put their full attention into a kick-ass AF system. The Nikon 3D tracking has been one the leaders recently and it's likely got even better with the D5/D500, so Olympus need to compete with this if they're going to get large volumes of sales in the sports/wildlife segment. No matter how good the lens is (and it looks really really good), there's no point in having it without an equally capable camera behind it, regardless of how small and lightweight the set up is.
Click to expand...

The difference is that with a SLR you can develop the AF module independently from everything else and they have been at it for decades.

With mirrorless that step change jump can only come at the same time as a new sensor, which limits your development to software, which although helps (as with FW v3) isn't a massive jump.

That said, even with SLRs Oly AF was pretty naff.
 
Nawty said:
The difference is that with a SLR you can develop the AF module independently from everything else and they have been at it for decades.
With mirrorless that step change jump can only come at the same time as a new sensor, which limits your development to software, which although helps (as with FW v3) isn't a massive jump.
Click to expand...

You're right, hardware limitations could be the reason for a lot of it, but I suspect their tracking algorithms are not as sophisticated as they could be. The Sony A7Fii has 399 PDAF points and reads out the entire frame between shots to perform pattern recognition (presumably using colour/face/edge information etc) to discover where the subject has moved to. I'd like something similar in the EM1 mkii please Olympus, but even if the hardware is capable, it can all be wasted by poor, cheap or rudimentary software engineering.

This is one area where they just need to invest significant money and resource. Once they've developed good tracking they'll be able to dine out on the proceeds for years by putting it in all future cameras. Plus AF tracking is one of the few remaining areas where DSLRs beat mirrorless, so removing that advantage could bring many new buyers, especially for sports/wildlife where they've now got a couple of great lenses and offer significant size/weight/cost advantages.
 
I'd like to see a 25mm 1.2 - the wider lenses don't appeal to me
 
f1.2 is no doubt very nice but trying to shoot at wide apertures in daylight may need a shutter speed of 1/8000 or even faster... IMO this is one area in which mirroless cameras have been lacking as few of them have the ability to shoot at a fast enough shutter speed to allow wide aperture shooting in good light... without ND's which are IMO a right royal PITA. Electronic shutters help... but you need a camera with the ability to one way or another shoot at fast shutter speeds.
 
Last edited:
Ulfric M Douglas said:
Know what we need? An F1 lens with a built in switchable ND filter ...
Click to expand...
As I've said many times... often when shooting with a MFT camera with a max shutter speed of 1/4000 I'm limited to f2.8 at the widest and on occasions and depending upon the scene f4 or even smaller. Fitting the ND for a shot only to have to remove it for the next because the shutter speed has fallen too low and / or the ISO has risen too high is a PITA. I'd much rather have 1/8000 available and do without ND's.

To me this is something that should have been addressed years ago. MFT cameras need good quality wide aperture lenses and we have them now and may get more... but they also need fast shutter speeds. Even in the half light of northern England 1/4000 just isn't enough let alone for locations where there's a chance that the sun might actually shine. Otherwise f1.2 will be for indoor and night time shooting only.
 
Anyone have experience of the panny 35-100 f2.8 ? I have the 40-150R and want something quicker but without the size of the pro version so was thinking of the Panasonic
 
woof woof said:
As I've said many times... often when shooting with a MFT camera with a max shutter speed of 1/4000 I'm limited to f2.8 at the widest and on occasions and depending upon the scene f4 or even smaller. Fitting the ND for a shot only to have to remove it for the next because the shutter speed has fallen too low and / or the ISO has risen too high is a PITA. I'd much rather have 1/8000 available and do without ND's.

To me this is something that should have been addressed years ago. MFT cameras need good quality wide aperture lenses and we have them now and may get more... but they also need fast shutter speeds. Even in the half light of northern England 1/4000 just isn't enough let alone for locations where there's a chance that the sun might actually shine. Otherwise f1.2 will be for indoor and night time shooting only.
Click to expand...
Yep it annoyed me with the EM10 tbh, but with the EM5-II I can go to 1/8000 which helps. However, in situations that you describe where you need an ND filter to get the shutter speed down to 1/4000 I just left the ND filter on (or CPL if I didn't need it too strong), the light would have to change a hell of a lot to mean the shutter speed drops too low. Even if the light dropped 4 stops you' still be shooting at 1/250.
 
So nothing really in it in terms of sharpness, IQ, bokeh - it's mainly down to price, size and reach.

I'd love to go the pro route but it would mean getting rid of the 75-300ii and therefore losing a load of reach, even if I got the TC.

Now to find a 35-100 for a reasonable amount :)
 
I've seen quite a few people say that with the Pro+TC they ended up selling their 75-300 as the results were fairly similar when cropping down.

I'm planning a trip to Alaska in June, I'm hoping the EM1ii will be released before then and that will satiate my desire for new kit for the trip - if not I may have to get one of the new super-tele lenses :eek: although in reality I think the EM1 (ii or otherwise) with 40-150 and TC should be enough for bears and whales.
 
Nawty said:
I haven't had any direct experience but have had similar thoughts to you, this is quite a good video of the two being compared:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeUCr1sHg0I
Click to expand...

I'm thinking of one of these too. I wanted some advice please. I have the EM10 and at present have the Tamron zoom 14-150. I have a bit of cash scraped together from selling my Nikon stuff and was thinking of getting the Olympus 14.40 2.8 and the Panasonic 35-100.
They would be used for general photography and landscapes whilst on hols twice a year. Would I see a big improvement in IQ considering the cost of the upgrade.
Thanks for any advice
 
damianmkv said:
Anyone have experience of the panny 35-100 f2.8 ? I have the 40-150R and want something quicker but without the size of the pro version so was thinking of the Panasonic
Click to expand...
Yes I had one for quite a while, until I got the 40-150 f/2.8 and MC-14.
The 35-100 is a lovely little zoom, quality wise there is very little in it although I would give the nod to the Oly Pro zoom.
However both are top quality glass, you have compactness with quality in the case of the Panny and relative compactness, reach and quality with the 40-150+MC-14 combo.
You wont be disappointed.
 
Thanks Huw - I see e-infinity do the 40-150 and tc for £879... And I know it's popped up on amazon's lightning delay a few times recently for £899...

hmmm...need to save more I think
 
Just re-read your post sorry prices below are for the 35-100

£565 on Panamoz if you're willing to take a punt with a grey import.
I've never used them myself but they seem to get good feedback.

Edit: currently £799 at SRS and in stock http://www.srsmicrosystems.co.uk/le...c-x-vario-35-100mm-f2-8-power-o-i-s-lens.html

Better still, £719 at Wilkinson Cameras http://www.wilkinson.co.uk/lenses/c...-lumix-g-x-vario-35-100mm-f2-8-power-ois.html

Yes I have seen the 40-150 and TC come up occasionally as an Amazon lightening deal
Hdew (again Grey) have them at £1045 or the lens only at £785.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
Yep it annoyed me with the EM10 tbh, but with the EM5-II I can go to 1/8000 which helps. However, in situations that you describe where you need an ND filter to get the shutter speed down to 1/4000 I just left the ND filter on (or CPL if I didn't need it too strong), the light would have to change a hell of a lot to mean the shutter speed drops too low. Even if the light dropped 4 stops you' still be shooting at 1/250.
Click to expand...

Light does change enormously and I find that when I'm using a camera limited to 1/4000 I'm either constantly fitting and removing ND's or just giving up and shooting at smaller apertures.

If your an f8 and be there kind of guy regardless of the format (with MFT f8 and be there should maybe be f4 and be there and f4 can cause problems depending upon the scene and lighting) then you'll probably never or rarely need ND's but if you want to shoot at f1.x to f2.8 and on occasion even f4 or smaller even in the dimness of northern England you're going to need ND's sooner of later. My record for needing an ND was f7.x! and it wasn't a blazingly sunny day in Thailand, just a lot of glare in northern England.

I often shoot a wide variety of stuff from scenery to buildings to wild or garden flowers and the light levels do vary enormously from shot to shot depending, obviously, on light, shade and the direction I point my camera. I can be at base ISO and above 1/4000 for one shot if I want reduced depth of field and for the next shot if I'm at f4-8 I can be at ISO 1600 and 1/30 if my ND 2 or 4 or both are still fitted and that's unacceptable so the ND has to come off again.

The light here in northern England often isn't great but even so shooting at wider than f2.8 often isn't possible without ND's and general shooting with them still in place can be a problem. This has been one of the biggest issues with MFT for me, thankfully mitigated by my GX7 which will shoot at 1/8000. At f1.2 it's only gong to be more of an issue.Trying to shoot wide open then stopped down with my f0.95 was an exercise in juggling lens hoods and ND's.
 
Last edited:
Ulfric M Douglas said:
It was addressed years ago.
Some of them do.
Click to expand...
Do ALL MFT? NO!
Of course it's an issue if you want to shoot at wide apertures in good light... IF you have a camera that doesn't have a high enough shutter speed!
 
@Greytop thanks Huw. Think I'd be shot if I threw £1000 at a lens - I'm not sure I could justify it either so will look at the 35-100
 
ianp5a said:
Time to spend some cash then! My EM5ii does 1/16,000 that I've never used.
Click to expand...
That's via electronic isn't it, I think it's 1/8000 mechanical. Never needed to go above 1/8000, although my widest lens if f1.8
 
woof woof said:
Light does change enormously and I find that when I'm using a camera limited to 1/4000 I'm either constantly fitting and removing ND's or just giving up and shooting at smaller apertures.

If your an f8 and be there kind of guy regardless of the format (with MFT f8 and be there should maybe be f4 and be there and f4 can cause problems depending upon the scene and lighting) then you'll probably never or rarely need ND's but if you want to shoot at f1.x to f2.8 and on occasion even f4 or smaller even in the dimness of northern England you're going to need ND's sooner of later. My record for needing an ND was f7.x! and it wasn't a blazingly sunny day in Thailand, just a lot of glare in northern England.

I often shoot a wide variety of stuff from scenery to buildings to wild or garden flowers and the light levels do vary enormously from shot to shot depending, obviously, on light, shade and the direction I point my camera. I can be at base ISO and above 1/4000 for one shot if I want reduced depth of field and for the next shot if I'm at f4-8 I can be at ISO 1600 and 1/30 if my ND 2 or 4 or both are still fitted and that's unacceptable so the ND has to come off again.

The light here in northern England often isn't great but even so shooting at wider than f2.8 often isn't possible without ND's and general shooting with them still in place can be a problem. This has been one of the biggest issues with MFT for me, thankfully mitigated by my GX7 which will shoot at 1/8000. At f1.2 it's only gong to be more of an issue.Trying to shoot wide open then stopped down with my f0.95 was an exercise in juggling lens hoods and ND's.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, can only speak from my experience shooting a variety of stuff abroad from f1.8 in bright sunshine to f5.6 in shade. Can you not get away with low ISO or is it still too bright?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top