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

Thanks Jon - I tried using c-AF+TR which was OK about 60% of the time although my eldest ( with the black bike ) said to me " what the hell is that focussing mode on your camera ? It just flies off and focuses on a post or tree ". He is 12 and shoots with a d3100.

I'd like more focus on the eyes rather than the bike but I guess the camera struggled with lack of contrast on a bright day
 
I've yet to play with the focus modes on the E-M1 but I'm off work for the summer holidays. Plenty of trips out the with kids and camera hopefully i will get chance to try it out.
 
Anyone got any experience of the 9-18mm ? I currently have a Samyang FE which is great but sometimes I'd like AF rather than MF
 
The 9-18mm is the bees knees. The quality is fine and and rectilinear image is useful. It's wide enough for most things. And the 18mm end is ok for a walkabout or street lens. Combine that with its tiny pocketable size and it makes a great lens for when traveling light.
 
Last edited:
I see lots of comments about it being soft at the corners - am sure most are OK as I can b****r up most shots to make them oof.

Would help for filters too..
 
Last edited:
damianmkv said:
I see lots of comments about it being soft at the corners - am sure most are OK as I can b****r up most shots to make them oof.

Would help for filters too..
Click to expand...

Just sold mine this morning but it's no reflection on the quality just that I don't use UWA that often. Very compact and light. Corners never seemed a problem but I would not be surprised if there is some corners softness wide open. Not many wide angles avoid that. 1 stop down from wide open and its singing along nicely. Really highly recommended from me.
 
joncro said:
I've yet to play with the focus modes on the E-M1 but I'm off work for the summer holidays. Plenty of trips out the with kids and camera hopefully i will get chance to try it out.
Click to expand...
Just bought Darrell youngs mastering the omd em1 book supposed to be very good and should be useful with the menu, though I've set it up the way I want there's still a lot about it I've not explored.
 
Last edited:
damianmkv said:
Anyone got any experience of the 9-18mm ? I currently have a Samyang FE which is great but sometimes I'd like AF rather than MF
Click to expand...
Yeah I love it.
I will post some pictures when I am home.
 
damianmkv said:
Anyone got any experience of the 9-18mm ? I currently have a Samyang FE which is great but sometimes I'd like AF rather than MF
Click to expand...

Here are some shots with mine

Wasdale in mono by Alf Branch, on Flickr

Wasdale in the gloom 1 by Alf Branch, on Flickr

This is on the E-M5II in high res mode I think

Buttermere reflection 2 by Alf Branch, on Flickr

Wasdale clouds and shadows by Alf Branch, on Flickr


This was handheld on a windy day leaning on a wall

Innerharbour breakers 1 by Alf Branch, on Flickr
 
Lovely, thanks Alf. Wish I'd seen the one in the classifieds now :( MPB have two at just over £300 so I might have to investigate what they'll give me for the samyang..
 
damianmkv said:
Lovely, thanks Alf. Wish I'd seen the one in the classifieds now :( MPB have two at just over £300 so I might have to investigate what they'll give me for the samyang..
Click to expand...
You need the 7-14 pro then you will have the full suite of Olympus Pro zoom lenses!
 
ideally, yes i do but I cant afford it as I'm mid house renovation. Maybe I'll just keep the FE a while longer
 
damianmkv said:
ideally, yes i do but I cant afford it as I'm mid house renovation. Maybe I'll just keep the FE a while longer
Click to expand...
I want a 7-14mm but I would need to change filter system so I am not in a hurry to get one.
 
My Olympus 7-14 is delicious, but when travelling (for lightness and compactness), I still pack the Olympus 9-18 instead. Maybe not quite as sharp but pretty good nonetheless and does enable me to use my Lee Seven5 filter system (ND grads and Little and big stoppers).
 
Thought you we going to say the 9-18 is rubbish and you want to sell it to me out of the goodness of your heart ;)
 
It did cross my mind Damien, but I wouldn't want to give you a less than perfect lens you see :p
 
I generally leave IBIS in auto mode, Mick as I'm just panning hand held. If I'm doing a long exposure, then I'll turn it off ( if I remember :) )
 
damianmkv said:
I generally leave IBIS in auto mode, Mick as I'm just panning hand held. If I'm doing a long exposure, then I'll turn it off ( if I remember :) )
Click to expand...
Just wondered Damian, as you get conflicting info regarding this subject.........I need to get out more and try this:)
 
I get plenty of practice as I have 2 boys under 13 so spend my life at the skatepark or bmx track. If I'm lucky, I get to go drag racin so they have to suffer :runaway:
 
Thanks Simon, I saw that but decided against it - then saw 2 at mpb which were cheaper, went out on business...came back..sold. Snooze / lose came to mind
 
ianp5a said:
No. Fuji cameras are more or less the same. Fujifilm will nudge ahead with the XT2. And Olympus will pull it back with the EM1ii. And so on.
Click to expand...

Sorry to bring up an old post - I'm not trolling I own a Fuji but have had Olympus OMD's and keep an eye on their products.

Is this the general consensus that Olympus produce image quality as good as Fuji's current range bar the XT-2 ?

Most reviews I have read say that the XT-10 for e.g. produces higher quality images than the micro 4/3 equivalent.

I sometimes look at the OMD EM10 ii as with that system I can pick up a wide angle (9-18mm) and a walkabout lens (14-150mm) cheaper than I could for fuji - ultimately I don't because of the image quality...
 
justa1972 said:
Sorry to bring up an old post - I'm not trolling I own a Fuji but have had Olympus OMD's and keep an eye on their products.

Is this the general consensus that Olympus produce image quality as good as Fuji's current range bar the XT-2 ?

Most reviews I have read say that the XT-10 for e.g. produces higher quality images than the micro 4/3 equivalent.

I sometimes look at the OMD EM10 ii as with that system I can pick up a wide angle (9-18mm) and a walkabout lens (14-150mm) cheaper than I could for fuji - ultimately I don't because of the image quality...
Click to expand...
ive owned a fuji x-pro1 and the x100 and now own the em10 mk-1, there is not much in the iq at all, the images do look different as fuji images are very distinctive, i think it comes down more to personal taste. for me the biggest difference is the kit is so much easier to carry with m4/3 the prime lens range is tiny in size. back on iq if you want the highest then full frame-(I've also been there) will give the best and after that it is a compromise, and only you can work out what area you are willing to compromise in.
 
justa1972 said:
Sorry to bring up an old post - I'm not trolling I own a Fuji but have had Olympus OMD's and keep an eye on their products.

Is this the general consensus that Olympus produce image quality as good as Fuji's current range bar the XT-2 ?

Most reviews I have read say that the XT-10 for e.g. produces higher quality images than the micro 4/3 equivalent.

I sometimes look at the OMD EM10 ii as with that system I can pick up a wide angle (9-18mm) and a walkabout lens (14-150mm) cheaper than I could for fuji - ultimately I don't because of the image quality...
Click to expand...


I'm sure if most of us m4/3 owners are being honest, we'd admit that physics dictates that a smaller sensor is always going to be disadvantaged against a larger sensor. If nothing else this is most obvious in context of noise where bigger sensors always have an advantage, they have more light to work with all else being equal. You see this in shadow recovery and DR too.

But the big question for me was is IQ from m4/3 good enough? I'm probably quite typical of an amateur in terms of what I do with my images. 99% never get printed and are viewed on a monitor with a resolution of 3.6mp. Sure I can view at 100% and see difference between different cameras but only because I go looking for them not because they are of importance. When I do print them, they generally go on a wall in the house and although I have one A1 image (from a 12mp dx sensor fwiw) most are A3 or less. At that size I find it impossible to distinguish between most modern cameras and on that basis m4/3 is good enough for me.

I like Fuji's cameras (have had a X100, XE1 and XF1) and could probably make many arguments for choosing that route over m4/3 but the things I love about my OMD are size, weight, incredible IBIS system and some stunning lenses, particularly some of the primes. You pays your money....
 
gad-westy said:
I'm sure if most of us m4/3 owners are being honest, we'd admit that physics dictates that a smaller sensor is always going to be disadvantaged against a larger sensor. If nothing else this is most obvious in context of noise where bigger sensors always have an advantage, they have more light to work with all else being equal. You see this in shadow recovery and DR too.
Click to expand...
The m4/3 sensor is virtually the same size as the APSC sensor though. Height wise it's just a few percent. And the wide format of the APSC is only of use if you need the panoramic proportions. And just serves to make the lenses bulkier.
A bigger difference is that many Fuji sensors are the trans-x type. Which may or may not be noticable. But more people seem to mention the film simulation modes. Where it is quite subjective. And something I'd lump in with the Olympus Art modes. I prefer to do anything like that in post where you have time, and can change my mind afterwards.
 
Last edited:
gad-westy said:
I'm sure if most of us m4/3 owners are being honest, we'd admit that physics dictates that a smaller sensor is always going to be disadvantaged against a larger sensor. If nothing else this is most obvious in context of noise where bigger sensors always have an advantage, they have more light to work with all else being equal. You see this in shadow recovery and DR too.

But the big question for me was is IQ from m4/3 good enough? I'm probably quite typical of an amateur in terms of what I do with my images. 99% never get printed and are viewed on a monitor with a resolution of 3.6mp. Sure I can view at 100% and see difference between different cameras but only because I go looking for them not because they are of importance. When I do print them, they generally go on a wall in the house and although I have one A1 image (from a 12mp dx sensor fwiw) most are A3 or less. At that size I find it impossible to distinguish between most modern cameras and on that basis m4/3 is good enough for me.

I like Fuji's cameras (have had a X100, XE1 and XF1) and could probably make many arguments for choosing that route over m4/3 but the things I love about my OMD are size, weight, incredible IBIS system and some stunning lenses, particularly some of the primes. You pays your money....
Click to expand...

Thanks Graham - this is what I suspected !

I keep looking at m4/3 but although I could save weight I won't save money - at present I use a 16-50 and a 50-230 and I will be adding a 23mm f2 if Fuji release one and maybe a Samyang 12mm or another Fuji 14mm if I find I can't live without it !

To get that equivalent in m4/3 would probably cost me more ! Fuji also make some pretty stunning lenses !
 
ianp5a said:
The m4/3 sensor is virtually the same size as the APSC sensor though. Height wise it's just a few percent. And the wide format of the APSC is only of use if you need the paroramic proportions.

Abigger difference is many fuji sensors are trans-x which may or may not make a significant different
Click to expand...

Sesnor area of m4/3 is 243mm^2 vs APSC at 373mm^2. That is quite a big difference in terms of light hitting the camera. Like I say, I'm very happy with m4/3 quality though.
 
Last edited:
gad-westy said:
Sesnor area of m4/3 is 243mm^2 vs APSC at 373mm^2. That is quite a big difference in terms of light hitting the camera. Like I say, I'm very happy with m4/3 quality though.
Click to expand...
Yes, but you have to look at where that area difference lies.
 
Last edited:
ianp5a said:
The m4/3 sensor is virtually the same size as the APSC sensor though. Height wise it's just a few percent. And the wide format of the APSC is only of use if you need the panoramic proportions. And just serves to make the lenses bulkier.
A bigger difference is that many Fuji sensors are the trans-x type. Which may or may not be noticable. But more people seem to mention the film simulation modes. Where it is quite subjective. And something I'd lump in with the Olympus Art modes. I prefer to do anything like that in post where you have time, and can change my mind afterwards.
Click to expand...

Humm not sure about that I think the aps-c sensor is a fair bit bigger - personally I love the Fuji film settings, saves me loads of time in post processing....

In saying that as Graham says above the IQ of m4/3 would be good enough for me.... But sometimes you think having just a bit more might help !

I draw the line at FF however...
 
APS-C (well Nikon anyway) has a sensor size of 23.6mm x 15.7mm

micro four thirds has a sensor size of 17.3mm x 13mm

That translates to a 6.3mm (or 26.5%) decrease in horizontal and 2.7mm (or 17%) in the vertical. Most of the horizontal difference is to do with the aspect ratio of the sensors with APS-C being a native 3:2 format and M43 being a native 4:3 format (or APS-C is quite a bit wider). The difference to Canon APS-C is a bit smaller (with the canon sensors being 22.2mm x 14.8mm in size).

When you look at it in those terms it doesn't sound like much, but with 16-20 million pixels in that relatively tiny area, space is certainly at a premium and every mm counts.
 
Last edited:
ianp5a said:
Yes, but you have to look at where that area difference lies.
Click to expand...

Yep, aspect ratio is well worth considering. It's an important differentiation and one of the reasons why some m4/3 lenses get away with being so tiny.
 
I like the handling of the Fujis but I prefer the 4:3 format. I wish it could be chosen in the Fuji menus.

I have a couple of Fuji bodies and then bought a E-M10 to try it out. I like the E-M10 and now struggling to decide what to keep.
 
Having just changed from apsc with Nikon To MFT I can honestly say I've seen no difference in IQ, maybe if I really analysed every photo maybe I would?? but I've no inclination or need to do so, been very happy with the IQ and the much smaller size of everything
I'm really not one for pixel-peeping and tbh that's the only way you'll see differences and not how you look at photos anyway
 
Last edited:
Comparing image quality on my wife's E-M10 and my Sony A58 (APS-C, 20MP, 4YO design) noise is more obvious. Her camera has the 14-42 pancake lens, and it's hard to know if the other aspects of lower image quality are down to mediocre optics or the sensor. At a screen size of 1024px on the long edge there's nothing in it, but look closer and the difference is at least as great as APS-C to FF.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top