E-M1 review with high ISO samples

<p>I meant to say above that "Nikon's D600 used/refurbished is about the <strong>price</strong> of the EM1...".</p>

<blockquote>

<p>actually, Laurentiu, my guy <em>was</em> running around --a lot. i just happened to freeze his motion with a high shutter speed. it's trickier than it looks, actually. i wouldnt attempt that with an MF lens at all.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is much easier to MF with a MILC than with an SLR. That is why I was glad to move away from SLRs. When you will finally make a decision to buy into such a system, you will get a chance to see for yourself.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>and in the venue i was shooting at, ISO 1250 is not going to cut it at all. as i suspected, the E-M5 is ok at ISO 3200 with a longer exposure, but that's not even close to the type of scene and shooting conditions i was describing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course it is. It is even darker than your scene - that is why I provided it as an example. You shot at ISO 5000, f/2, and a shutter speed that supposedly froze the movement of a guy running around. Let's say it was 1/125, although it must have been more than that if he was really running. Well, my ISO 3200 shot, was also taken at f/2 but the shutter speed was 0.62 seconds. If I would have shot at ISO 6400, I would have needed about 1/3. That is more than 40 times less light than your scene had!</p>

<p>So from the point of view of noise, my example can be used to judge the low light capability of the E-M5.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>do you have any ISO 5000-6400 shots, with fast shutters, shot in dim, interior environments with tricky lighting?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why would I use such high ISO when I have faster apertures available? I only need to match your ISO 6400, f/2 shots with ISO 1600, f/0.95. If you don't understand why, read about <a href="http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/index.htm">equivalence</a>. And I have shots taken in similar conditions but they won't be taken in the exact same conditions and you'll always find something to pick on, as if the sky could fall if one would bump the ISO from 3200 to 6400.</p>

<p>Where I cannot match the performance of FF cameras is in low ISO performance - because the E-M5 MFT sensor does not provide me with lower ISO settings - in fact, it doesn't even provide me with an ISO 100 setting. But even there, the differences would not be very noticeable at the sizes at which we exchange samples, as Elliot has pointed out already. We would have to go into pixel peeping.<br>

<br /> Performance of large sensor cameras is matched by smaller sensor ones at lower ISO with faster apertures. The problem is of course that smaller sensor cameras usually don't get faster lenses than large sensor ones. But the MFT system has plenty of lenses faster than f/1.8. Why do you think the FT zooms were f/2? It was to make the system competitive to APS-C systems matched to f/2.8 zooms. f/2 zooms offer a one stop advantage that more than compensates the 2/3 stop light gathering advantage that APS-C has over MFT. Understand this and you'll understand why MFT has no problem matching the performance of APS-C.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>thanks for sharing those shots, but they're not nightclub action shots, except for the first, which wasn't even shot with an MFT camera, but an APS-C body.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That shot was meant to illustrate that manual focusing can be effective with a wide aperture in low light, even on an SLR that provides little aid for manual focusing. On a MILC, it is even easier. That APS-C body also has much inferior low light performance compared to the E-M5 - I can vouch for that with my experience or you can just check dxomark if you don't believe me.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>thus, those are shots anyone could have taken with any camera. usually, when i shoot at this club, my shutter is around 1/160-1/200, which is why i need f/2 and ISO 5000.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Right, so you are really shooting in conditions where you have <strong>50+times more light</strong> than I had available in my ISO 3200 scene. Do you still think that your shot is a better demonstration of low light capability than mine?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>btw, i rarely do night landscapes, but when i do, i like to use a tripod and a longer exposure, at about f/8-11. i like the last shot, especially if it was handheld, but i would have like to see that same scene stopped down to f/8, with a longer exposure, at base ISO.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>From the point of view of DOF, f/2 on MFT is like f/4 on FF. f/8 would be like f/32 - you get diffraction effects at that point. f/4 might be better, although I kind of like the thinner DOF in such scenes - it gives a sense of depth. My style of photography at this point can indeed be described as snapshot and exploratory - I rarely take my tripod outside my home and I don't have a clear goal, I am just testing what I can do.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>if you rarely go above ISO 800, just about any modern camera will suffice. if you have, ah, specialized needs, you need a more specialized camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Certainly. But the reason I rarely need to go above ISO 800 is because the MFT system allows me to do that via specialized features:</p>

<ul>

<li>I have f/0.95 lenses available: 17.5mm, 25mm, and now also 42.5mm - these give me 3 classic perspectives (35mm, 50mm, and 85mm in FF terms) and cover all my needs for low light photography. I gain at least 1 stop advantage from these (over APS-C).</li>

<li>I have a good image stabilization system that allows me to shoot at low shutter speeds. I gain at least 2 stops advantage over any system lacking this feature.</li>

</ul>

<p>Were I to shoot a camera with no image stabilization and slower lenses I would often end up having to use higher ISO values than 3200. The lack of those 3 stops of advantage would push me from operating within 200-800 in low light conditions, to using 1600-6400 instead and perhaps even more. I would certainly need high ISO performance then. And that would be the case with any APS-C MILC system that you mentioned as competition for the E-M1. And that is why I don't really see those cameras at competition - not until they gain in-body image stabilization and faster lens options in their lineup.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>1/125 sec; f/2.5; ISO 6400, Lumix 14mm f2.5<br>

The color values of the black are almost identical to the B&W image you posted.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you for providing this example!</p>

<p>When I bought my Olympus OMD EM-5 I did not consider the FF camera as an option. After thinking of a new camera for a couple years I decided to consider the Olympus, Nex and the Canon 60D. Even though I had NikonDSLR system I was wanted to jump ship because Nikon did not offer a camera that I really wanted. They only have the D7100 in the line up that I would consider and the gat rip and squishy looking body did not appeal to me so I ruled out Nikon. The new small mirrorless Nikon did not appeal to me as I just did not want a sensor that small. In the end I bought the EM-5 at Keeble and Schuchatt in Palo Alto Ca. Nice folks in there and they spent a lot of time showing me the different models. If I was currently looking at camera I would still buy the EM-5 because I like the camera without the extra grip and of course the lower cost. I did like the Canon DSLR but it was still going to be big and heavy and the construction did not hold up to the Olympus. Weather sealing was important because I go sailing every Wednesday evening during the season. I wanted to be able to take some spray.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Eric, just for you...<br /> 1/125 sec; f/2.5; ISO 6400, Lumix 14mm f2.5<br /> The color values of the black are almost identical to the B&W image you posted.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>well, that is a fairly black image. and it is ISO 6400. not exactly an action shot, however. i was really hoping for something with identical shooting conditions. thanks for posting, but i'm not convinced. that's a noisier/less detailed central image for sure than what i posted, so you might just be looking at NR smearing which blacks out the blacks but also robs sharpness from the central image. . also, i failed to mention that nightclub venues often have strong contra light which can further strain a camera's ability to cope at upper-echelon ISOs. most reviews i've read of _ALL_ m4/3 bodies have recommended not going above 3200 practically, and that's for the latest-gen.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon's D600 used/refurbished is about the size of the EM1, and that to me would be a better choice just because of the dual card slots.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is actually a really critical point because the lack of 2 card slots signifies the camera maker doesnt fully consider it a pro camera 9including scene modes is another). for $1400, the E-m1 should definitely have two card slots, allowing Raw/Jpeg, backup, continuous, or stills/video. the other point about the two cameras being the same size also undermines the m 4/3 ethos: how micro can it be, if it's the same size as a FF body?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It is much easier to MF with a MILC than with an SLR.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>maybe so, but if i'm photographing action, i want AF, and the best AF i can get. if i was going to use MF on a mirrorless for moving targets, i'd want focus peaking like the NEX. does the OMD E-series have that?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Well, my ISO 3200 shot, was also taken at f/2 but the shutter speed was 0.62 seconds. If I would have shot at ISO 6400, I would have needed about 1/3. That is more than 40 times less light than your scene had!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>no, completely different shot. mine emphasizes action. obviously you can't freeze motion at .62 or 1/3. if i was to drop my shutter i could have lowered my ISO but so what? that would have meant i screwed up the shot. that's the opposite of what i'm trying to do. just because you can quote a statistic doesnt make it a relevant statistic.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>thanks for sharing those shots, but they're not nightclub action shots, except for the first, which wasn't even shot with an MFT camera, but an APS-C body.<br /> That shot was meant to illustrate that manual focusing can be effective with a wide aperture in low light, even on an SLR that provides little aid for manual focusing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i'm starting to think that you think if you argue enough, you'll be right. in actuality, i asked you for a comparable shot with an M4/3 body and you gave me a shot which wasn't comparable, nor shot with an m4/3 body. no amount of equivocation can change those basic facts.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Do you still think that your shot is a better demonstration of low light capability than mine?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>yes, because we're talking about specific conditions and a usable (printable/publishable) shot, not some random grab shot of a waikiki mall. again, you ignoring anything that doesnt support your premise is wearing thin.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>From the point of view of DOF, f/2 on MFT is like f/4 on FF</p>

</blockquote>

<p>which is 2 stops -- that can make a significant difference in subject isolation.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the reason I rarely need to go above ISO 800 is because the MFT system allows me to do that via specialized features:</p>

<ul>

<li>I have f/0.95 lenses available: 17.5mm, 25mm, and now also 42.5mm - these give me 3 classic perspectives (35mm, 50mm, and 85mm in FF terms) and cover all my needs for low light photography. I gain at least 1 stop advantage from these (over APS-C).</li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

<p>that's a more interesting argument, albeit one which is a bit off-topic. what's interesting is those specialized features you mention, i.e. the voigtlanders, cost $1000 each. so, that's $4400 with an e-m1 body, or more than a nikon d600 with 35/50/85 1.4 sigma lenses, plus you're forced to use MF. i understand the accentuate the positive theme, but why wouldn't i get a d600 and those three lenses for that same amount of cash -- and also get the superior FF performance at high-ISO?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have a good image stabilization system that allows me to shoot at low shutter speeds. I gain at least 2 stops advantage over any system lacking this feature.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>merely ticking off the camera's marketing copy doesnt change the fact that stabilization wont help you freeze subject motion. but, i suppose that's a mantra you have to repeat to yourself to justify all the cash you've poured into your system.</p>

<p>let me put this another way: the reason you dont need to go over ISO 800 is because you're not shooting the same stuff i shoot -- which makes your argument moot.</p>

<p>here's a shot from this past weekend, shot with d3s and 70-200VRII. tech specs were 1/200, 3.2, ISO 6400.</p><div></div>

<p>Eric, I am not sure what your point is?</p>

<p>Found this interesting YOUTUBE video review:</p>

<p><a href="

<p>2nd part (dealing with IQ):</p>

<p><a href="

<blockquote>

<p>if i'm photographing action, i want AF, and the best AF i can get.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Certainly, but we were discussing sensor performance, not autofocus.<br /> <br /> But if you want to talk autofocus, I am interested in what APS-C MILC system (there not being any FF one yet) you think offers better AF than MFT.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>if i was going to use MF on a mirrorless for moving targets, i'd want focus peaking like the NEX. does the OMD E-series have that?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, the E-M1 and some Pens have that. Not that it would be that reliable with thin DOF and in dark places, but you're welcome to try it out.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>in actuality, i asked you for a comparable shot with an M4/3 body and you gave me a shot which wasn't comparable</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Like I said already:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have shots taken in similar conditions but they won't be taken in the exact same conditions and you'll always find something to pick on</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I know already what you are going to pick on. You've lost the argument about sensor performance and now you're trying to redirect the argument towards autofocus, cost, anything else but to avoid admitting that the performance difference between formats is not really that relevant anymore.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why wouldn't i get a d600 and those three lenses for that same amount of cash -- and also get the superior FF performance at high-ISO?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For various reasons: size, build, preference for an EVF and the features it enables, ability to adapt lenses from other systems, not wanting to spend money on an SLR mount that may be discontinued by the end of this decade - take your pick.<br /> <br /> So much for bringing up cost. High performance equipment will always cost. You're not going to save much money by jumping across systems - except if you only need some lenses that happen to be significantly cheaper on one system.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>merely ticking off the camera's marketing copy doesnt change the fact that stabilization wont help you freeze subject motion</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Stop belittling my remarks as "merely ticking off the camera's marketing copy" or I'll also start qualifying your remarks in ways you won't find very comfortable. IBIS does provide an advantage for many scenarios which happen to be my main scenarios even if they are not yours. And yes, for freezing subject motion, I would need to use higher ISO for that scenario. But as I demonstrated already the ISO 3200 performance, it follows that I have enough latitude when I need to bump the ISO.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>let me put this another way: the reason you dont need to go over ISO 800 is because you're not shooting the same stuff i shoot.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course, the ISO 800 was what I need to use for my scenarios, not for yours. As we already discussed, for your scenarios I may need to use ISO 1250 and I can go higher if I need it. It's not a big issue - you're just trying to make it sound like one. That is pretty much all you've been doing - blowing the impact of a technical aspect (MFT sensor size) out of proportion and ignoring any other mitigating factors.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>here's a shot from this past weekend, shot with d3s and 70-200VRII. tech specs were 1/200, 3.2, ISO 6400</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, and now to come back to our argument, let me know what APS-C MILC and what lens combo can do better in this scenario than MFT. What competition does the E-M1 have from other MILCs for this particular scenario.</p>

<p>The Olympus EM-1 is going to have the best AF of the mirrorless models in current production. I have the EM-5 and it has the best AF of any camera I have ever owned. But I have only owned a Nikon N80, F100 and D200 (AF models). I decided to jump ship on the Nikon system as they do not have a model I wanted and I am reluctant to spend much on a dying camera system. So here I am with the Oly. I will not be buying the EM-1 as I just bought a new camera but in 5 or 10 years I will most likely be shopping again. <br>

Now that I have video I can see that I would probably be fine just shooting video and selecting out single frames from that. I am using my EM-5 that way now along with stills. So maybe the next camera I buy could just bypass the stills aspect and go straight to video. But we shall see. </p>

<p>Interesting thread. Thanks to Laurentiu for the link!<br /><br /> <br />I think we're forgetting somethingThe noise levels from this camera's sensor are very low, no doubt. No doubt at all. But the quality of the noise is unpleasant to me. I'd rather look at Lomography CN 800. Grainy, but beautiful. .<br /><br /> <br />I am not impressed with most M4/3 lenses, BTW. They're no worse than Canon or Nikon lenses - in fact, some are better. Still, the M4/3 system is almost the perfect compromise between sensor size and image quality. Not a bad thing at all.<br /><br /><br />Thie EM-1 is, overall, brilliant, and if I had to choose between this and a DSLR, I'd choose the EM-1. I currently use the Sony NEX with adapters. Looking at maybe a Leica M9 or two (yes, even after seeing the low noise of the Olympus). Looking at shooting more film, too, including half-frame (4-perf 35mm). I say all that so you know where I'm coming from.<br /><br /><br />And yes, I have done (and will do) paid work, and some of that was with an NEX. :-)<br /><br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>With the E-M1, we see the size starting to creep back up into DSLR territory</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />The evidence refutes this assertion:<br /><br /> <br />http://www.dpreview.com/previews/olympus-om-d-e-m1/4<br /><br /></p>

<blockquote>While some program can reduce and/or eliminate moiré issues, you cannot remove it from video.</blockquote>

<p><br />You probably can get away with a light fog or low contrast filter. In fact you probably should use those for video.<br /><br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>wide apertures with shallow DoF<br>

<br />you'd need the voigtlander f/0.95 on MFT to match the DoF at f/2 on FF</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />I find it difficult to understand the obsession with shallow DOF.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>It's kind of like the film vs digital threads. The film guys kicking and screaming about digital while going over to the other side one by one. Now the King Kong camera folks with their old fashiioned camera's are kicking and screaming as they come over one by one to the modern world of mirrorless.. All the while the cell phone is slowly putting everyone out of business.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />I happen to believe that DSLRs are redundant for the most part. How reflexes significantly overtook RFs, I'll never understand.<br /><br /></p>

<blockquote>The 3:2 needs the "boot"</blockquote>

<p><br />You're not wrong. I still use it, but the NEX cameras do have an option for 16:9.</p>

<p>I guess on the 3:2 thing maybe it needs the boot and maybe it doesn't.. For me the 4:3rds aspect ratio replaced the 3:2. It is a better choice for me as it crops well for the sizes I print at. Also I always disliked the 3:2 for verticle shots. Just to long and skinny for me and for years now I have pretty much shot everything horizontal. That is not an issue for me any longer. I do like the 16:9 aspect ratio as it fits my monitor. So I usually shoot a few of those.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>we were discussing sensor performance, not autofocus.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>now you're trying to limit the conversation to your own comfort zone. sorry, but somewhere in this thread you made the claim that M4/3 can do anything any other camera can do. that is simply not true;if it was, no one would use FF or APS-C cameras.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Of course, the ISO 800 was what I need to use for my scenarios, not for yours. As we already discussed, for your scenarios I may need to use ISO 1250 and I can go higher if I need it. It's not a big issue</p>

</blockquote>

<p>let's be real here. m 4/3 can go up to about ISO 3200 (cleanly), just like today's (less expensive) APS-C bodies. after that, the sensor limitations do come into play by introducing higher noise into photos. i regularly shoot in environments where i need to go much higher than 3200. therefore, m 4/3 is not going to give me the same level of performance as my FF body. the problem with your argument is you are trying to insist that sensor size plays no role whatsoever and has no impact on performance. the laws of physics dictate that that cannot possibly be true. which is why an e-m5 or e-m1 is never going to beat a nikon D3s in hi-ISO performance.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You've lost the argument about sensor performance</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i dont think so, i think you're just being stubborn. OTOH, you've clearly lost the argument about there being no competition for the e-m1.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What competition does the E-M1 have from other MILCs for this particular scenario.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>this is a trick question because the e-m1 can only match the performance of a pro-spec DSLR with a pro-spec lens like the 70-200 VR II with legacy 4/3 lenses. if you dont have one of those, you dont get to fully utilize the camera's AF array and use PDAF completely. this is not a big deal for you because you dont shoot action. but for those of us who do, that is indeed an issue. other MILCs can't match this yet either, which is why you dont see pro shooters using them, except as secondary/backup cameras, or for video.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>With the E-M1, we see the size starting to creep back up into DSLR territory<br>

<br />The evidence refutes this assertion:</p>

</blockquote>

<p>well, not exactly. from <a href="http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/the-e-m1-versus-the-e-m5.html">thom hogan</a>: "<em>The biggest difference between the E-M1 and D7100 is weight (D7100 is only 54% heavier than the E-M1, while it is 91% heavier than an E-M5). <strong>In size, they're nearly the same width</strong>, the D7100 is 14% taller (but has a flash up there that the E-M1 doesn't), and the mount differences make the D7100 20% thicker than the E-M1.</em>"<br>

The point was that while you can make a case for m4/3 as a compact system when used with short zooms and primes, the e-m1 goes against that school of thought by being bigger and heavier than the e-m5 and other m 4/3 bodies. it's clearly intended to be used with Olympus 4/3 glass, some of which is fairly massive. so right there, the size advantages go out the window. note that i didnt say the e-m1 is the exact same size as competitive DSLRs, i said it's "starting to creep up into DSLR territory."</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am interested in what APS-C MILC system (there not being any FF one yet) you think offers better AF than MFT.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>another trick question, trying to put words in my mouth i didn't say. as i mentioned earlier, i'm waiting on the next iteration of the Fuji X-mount cameras, i.e. xpro2. the first-gen cameras were pretty slow, just like the first-gen m 4/3, but the AF in the x100s is reputedly up to snuff. so it stands to reason the 2nd-gen will at least be as good as the x100s.</p>

<p>that said, none of the above matters for anyone who has already invested into m 4/3 and wants a better body. but for those of us who havent--which is obviously a much larger segment--all relevant criteria is going to be assessed before the trigger is pulled, including size, performance, features, available lens selection, and price point. So not only does the e-m1 face significant competition from current bodies, it also faces competition from cameras which haven't been announced yet. i have no doubt i could use the e-m1 for some of what i shoot and remain reasonably convinced it would perform admirably. however, the same could be said of a gx7, e-m5, x100s, or nex-7. if there truly were "no competition," i would have already placed my pre-order on the e-m1. i am, however, looking forward to real-world shots from early adopters, and at that point i will re-evaluate and adjust my opinion accordingly.</p>

<p>Eric, since it appears you do not have the camera(s) in question (or any other MFT body), just curious how do you know so much about what they can and cannot do?</p>

<p>I would not really care if a big heavy DSLR would wash the dishes and make coffee. I do not want another one even for free. </p>

<p>Well on second <em>thought I would take it for free and then sell it to BHPhoto or KEH. </em></p>

<blockquote>

<p>now you're trying to limit the conversation to your own comfort zone. sorry, but somewhere in this thread you made the claim that M4/3 can do anything any other camera can do. that is simply not true;if it was, no one would use FF or APS-C cameras.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, Eric, you've missed the point of that challenge. Your initial comments were about the lack of DR of MFT sensors, which to me was the sign of an armchair analyst at work. So to get back to reality I challenged you to demonstrate the superiority of the APS-C/FF sensors. As it turns out, your use scenario doesn't even require high DR - you are in fact shooting at such high ISO settings that your camera's DR falls under 10Ev and even under 9Ev - you just don't need that much DR for your night club scenes. Instead, what you actually do need is AF, a point where MFT leads in performance among MILCs, so your dismissal of MFT in favor of Fuji/Sony systems now comes out as *insert your own qualification here*.</p>

<p>If you will pardon me for jumping in...<br>

I can say categorically that at least two members of Magnum are using M43 cameras for assignments, so some pros are certainly seeing the benefits of the system.<br>

I just returned from 10 weeks shooting projects and assignments in SE Asia. I took a 2 body Nikon kit (D3s) with the Holy Trinity and a Panasonic GH3 with the 12-35 f2.8 and 35-100 f2.8.<br>

My camera bag weighed 17kg. Since I took 12 flights and carried that bag on, I was fairly paranoid because the maximum limit on all the flights (3 different carriers) was 7 kg. Combining that bag weight with 30+ centigrade and 90+% humidity was not my idea of fun.<br>

I did paid work on the trip and shot for an outdoor exhibition which opens in 10 days and has around 60 prints at A1 size.<br>

About 75% of all my work on the trip was done with the GH3 because the Nikon stuff was just such a PITA to carry. <br>

Every piece of that Nikon kit is now headed to the dealer having been PXd for a 2 body EM-1 system. Yes the IQ at low light levels is better. Yes the battery lasts longer and yes I am losing my second card slot (something I am annoyed about but will have to work around somehow). I sent the GH3 back too - too much video not enough stills in the DNA.<br>

The new 12-40 f2.8 and 40-150 f2.8 are likely to be outstanding (the 12-40 reviews all agree it is, the 40-150 is due next year and is likely to be equally good): combined with the tiny but excellent 12mm f2 for keeping ISO lower in poor light I am confident the gains will exceed the losses for me and my work (NGO, charity, government and commercial).<br>

I know my back will be the better for it. Due to the lower cost, insurance premiums will fall and body replacements in 2 years will cost 25% of the current system.<br>

This solution won't work for everyone, but for some it will. Horses for courses, as they say. I hope that the EM-X in 2 years time has 2 card slots - I am betting it will, even if one is in the battery grip.</p><div></div>

<p>Just a quick point about more than one card slot: many, if not most, cameras have only one card slot. Many photographers, a lot of them working for money, used and still use those cameras. YMMV.</p>

<p>I am not saying that two card slots is bad. However, I don't factor this into the equation. I usually have two (maybe three - maybe) camera bodies when I'm on a job, which is IMHO more important than the second card slot.</p>

<p>Good point, Karim - and it shows how quickly we accept new things as de rigueur!<br>

AFAIK a Leica M has one slot for example and until very recently hardly any others did.<br>

I do sometimes wonder why more cameras do not have an internal memory chip you can use - they are pretty small and a spare 16gb overflow would be a lifesaver in some circumstances.</p>

<p>Until you have lost irreplaceable images due to a faulty memory card, you probably cannot appreciate the need for a 2nd memory card slot. While it doesn't happen often, memory cards do fail. IMO, anyone shooting a wedding or other special event should use a body with 2 memory card slots.</p>

<p>I have no problem with this new body or my OMD EM5 only having 1 slot. But as someone who has had cards fail in the past, I will not shoot a paid event without a body that has 2. If the EM1 had 2 slots, I would get a couple and get rid of my other gear.</p>

<p>FWIW,<br>

I am currently a Canon DSLR owner with a fairly significant investment in lenses who is eagerly looking to shed all of the weight of my Canon gear. <br>

I've handled and briefly shot the GX7 at a local demo by pros who have adopted the m4/3s system and it is a very fine camera. I've not touched the E-1 yet but I have no doubt it is a fine performer with an excellent feature set. <br>

To begin my journey with m4/3s I purchased a Lumix GX1 with EVF as an inexpensive 'learner' camera and have been buying quality primes, adding about one a month. My latest acquisition is the Olympus 60mm f/2.8 macro and my results with it easily compete with my Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro. The PL 25mm f/1.4 is optically a tiny jewel along with the Olympus 45 f/1.8. My point here is that there is little want for quality optics compared to the big boys. When you add to the mix that the new E-1 can handle Olympus 4/3s lens line there is little a pro couldn't choose from to meet their needs. To reap the maximum IQ from m4/3s quality optics deliver the goods though at a price. One could easily get by with a 3 zoom kit using the 7-14, 12-35, & 35-100 zooms. The weight of that kit with 2 m4/3s is probably less than my EF 70-2oo f/2.8 alone!<br>

Having said all that there are still some holes in the Panasonic/Olympus offerings such as their TTL flash offerings when compared to Nikon or Canon. The GX7 doesn't have a PC connection and AFAIK, none of the m4/3s body have a depth of field preview button.<br>

My plan is to purchase a GX7 first followed by a E-1 after prices drop or the used market opens up for these bodies.<br>

I will keep my Canon system - for a while but eventually it will go. I'm not a pro by trade but have and do occasionally shoot for hire. There is little doubt in my mind that the latest m4/3s can function in a pro role. And there is one thing that goes understated about the m4/3s format and that is the aspect ratio, much less confining for me than the 2:3 ratio.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Don, I don't think you will be disappointed.<br>

I'm personally (YMMV!) less impressed with the Panasonic offerings than the Olympus offerings but I have a somewhat curmudgeonly view of video and so that probably colours my view there! For me, video belongs on video cameras, not my stills cameras and is as much use to me as an ashtray on a motorbike.<br>

You presumably live in the USA where prices actually fall - I live in New Zealand, where they never do so until the replacement for a camera is actually out and there is never any significant difference between MRRP and so-called 'street' price - so it makes no sense for me to wait. All I do is deprive myself of the benefits of the EM-1 system in the meantime!<br>

In real world shooting, unless you shoot sports for a living, frankly the modern m43 cameras can compete perfectly well for most uses now.<br>

I may well combine mine with the rumoured new Sony FF mirrorless system which is apparently going to be available in two bodies very soon, one offering 24Mp and one offering 36Mp and both costing less than $3000. That would give a high res small option and a lower res tough, fast option and all weighing masses less than Canikon offerings.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My point here is that there is little want for quality optics compared to the big boys. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>What is missing are high-end zooms, but Panasonic and Olympus have started working on it and the E-M1 now permits the better use of the f/2 FT zooms.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For me, video belongs on video cameras, not my stills cameras and is as much use to me as an ashtray on a motorbike.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not yet interested in video, but the fact that Blackmagic uses the MFT mount for their <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/964117-REG/blackmagic_design_blackmagic_pocket_cinema_camera.html">video</a> <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/891443-REG/Blackmagic_Design_cinecam26kmft_Blackmagic_Design_Cinema_Camera.html">cameras</a> is a big appeal for the system.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You presumably live in the USA where prices actually fall - I live in New Zealand, where they never do so until the replacement for a camera is actually out and there is never any significant difference between MRRP and so-called 'street' price - so it makes no sense for me to wait.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If it's any consolation, prices for the E-M5 have not fallen as much as for other Olympus camera models. The model is still kept in production, so I expect its price will keep steady for another year. </p>

<p>Olympus have a 40-150mm constant f2.8 weathersealed pro zoom for M43 to be released in 2014. It matches the excellent 12-40 f2.8 being released with the EM-1<br>

That gives 24-300 equivalent at f2.8 in only 2 lenses, built to high standards and full weather sealing.<br>

One of each on 2 EM-1 bodies and that is a pretty fair lightweight option and that's what I am doing. A similar quality fast UWA (a 7-12 f2.8 is assumed) is promised for 2015 or 16, which will give 14mm - 300mm at f2.8 in 3 lenses.<br>

I shall be adding the shortly to be released Sony A7 24mp mirror less with a fast 35mm on it for the portable high IQ option - or a Sony RX1R if that is cheaper.</p>

<p>Wanted to order the E-M1, but it's out of stock everywhere. I should have preordered it. But maybe it's for the better and I'll get more time to think of whether I should pick the pairing with the 12-40 lens.</p>