Jump to content

E-M1 review with high ISO samples


laur1

Recommended Posts

<p>If you have not seen this already, it is a pretty interesting look at the E-M1:<br>

<a href="http://robinwong.blogspot.com/2013/09/olympus-om-d-e-m1-review-introduction.html">http://robinwong.blogspot.com/2013/09/olympus-om-d-e-m1-review-introduction.html</a></p>

<p>The camera also looks better in these close up shots vs the ones leaked before the official release.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

<p>Interesting review. Thanks for the link.</p>

<p>I prefer to see side-by-side comparison shots when comparing high ISO images (as compared to the E-M5) but these do seem pretty good on their own and look like a major improvement. I would be interested in seeing what DXO has to sa.</p>

<p>I would also like to know more about the continuous AF upgrade, whether or not it really works and works well.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>those hi-ISO shots are pretty impressive. but the E-M1 faces tough competition at its price point. it has all the bells and whistles, but it costs about as much as a nikon d600 refurb. looks like it would be great for videographers and PJs, but i'd like to see what fuji comes up with with the xpro2.</p>

<p>there's another fairly detailed review with lots of pics <a href="http://blog.mingthein.com/2013/09/10/olympus-om-d-e-m1-review-1/">here</a>.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Laurentiu, thanks for Robin's link. At least Olympus delivered on their promise to provide autofocus functionality ( to be tested out of course) for their fine line up of Zuiko ED lenses. It does look like it will be state of the art in other ways and ergonomic with its nice grip and add on grip holder. And I am really eager to have a look at the latest and greatest in electronic viewfinders, which are doing a great job as we get used to them. I also like the thoughtful design of the Lumix GX 7. Seems like button and wheel placement are smarter and cleverer... I need more fun money to spend is all!..<br /> .Would I take out my E-3 for a quick job over something like the EM-1? Maybe, as it is still a good camera with solid build and more, no need for the latest and greatest. ( <em>Need</em> is ambiguous criteria for we techno based gadgeteers naturally, painters have it easier re tools) Idea of cabled connection to a bigger screen is seductive idea, keep thinking that.... For a tripod collared lens like the 50-200 no sweat for weight balance. For the 50mm macro the same. <br /> Alternatively does it seem like the fast zooms coming down the micro track are the better choice. It presents a dilemma for those wanting to keep up with technology. Two systems essentially. But photographers have lived with multiple systems ( e.g, An old 6X6 Hasselblad or Mamiya or a Pentax 6X7 and maybe a Leica...and different films which latter are a non consideration with digital.)<br /> If one has stuck with Olympus, it raises the flag hoist up, and the prophets of corporate doom will now have to dig deeper in their gripe bag...Me, I am happy as a morning lark about micro four thirds, and the movie hybrids too. It takes a different mindset to shoot some video. Good for the neurons Alan Alda would say ......</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I don't think this camera faces any competition really - it provides a needed platform for FT users and an upgrade for any MFT users that need one. And its cost matches the features - I'd like to see a less expensive camera providing all that the E-M1 offers, but there is none. Between the E-PM2 and the E-M1, Olympus is offering plenty of capable cameras.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I don't think this camera faces any competition really</p>

</blockquote>

<p>that's a ridiculous statement, and one which cannot be backed up with facts. a camera is a product, in a market with other products. anyone considering it will naturally consider other cameras at that same price point. i can see where a m 4/3 user might be salivating, but as someone invested heavily in nikon, i have to consider the pros and cons of this camera, as well as others in its class i might consider. for that price point, i'm looking at the d600 and the xpro2, whenever it comes out, as well as whatever canon has going. as a non-m 4/3 user, i have to consider the expense of investing in a new system, as well as the benefit of staying put, or going to another system, be it Fuji X mount or Sony NEX.</p>

<p>the e-m1 looks nice, and i appreciate the professional features with lighter weight, but the dynamic range is not going to match FF or APS-C due to the smaller sensor. that's not even debatable. what is arguable is whether the IQ is "enough" for most applications that i, as a photojournalist, might want to use it for. both reviewers seem to think it is. can it make nice pictures? sure. but does it match the IQ of larger sensors? no. will that matter? that's the question.</p>

<p>i do like that Olympus has raised the bar on functionality and i hope that trickles over to other camera makers. but this camera is going to have to sell a sh*tload of units for other manufacturers to take notice. i hope that happens, but at that price point, i'm not sure there are enough prosumers to make that a reality.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I don't think this camera faces any competition really</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As someone invested in both Canon and M4/3 I am weighng up the E-M1 versus a Canon 70D or 6D. If the E-M1 were cheaper that would make my decision easier - not that I don't hink the E-M1 has an impressive feature set, but M4/3 sensors to date don't fully meet all my IQ needs.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>there are no competitors.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>sorry, but that's just not true at all. to be perfectly clear, there is no factual basis for that statement whatsoever. to expound on my previous comment, cameras don't exist in a vacuum. they exist in a market, which is defined by price point and features. so, at the over-$1000, under- $2000 level, there is plenty of competition. essentially, you're looking at high-end APS-C as well as entry-level full frame. the camera also faces competition from other m4/3 cameras which are less expensive.</p>

<p>Perhaps what you meant to say was, at its price point, there is currently nothing like it in the m 4/3 class, which would at least be a reasonable statement and not just pure hyperbole. the E-M1 does offer a respite to older 4/3rds users who have basically been abandoned by both Panasonic and Olympus. However, the E-M1 competes directly with not only the E-M5, but also the Panasonic GH3 and GX7 in the m 4/3 class, and it also competes with high-end APS-C offerings from Fuji, Nikon, Canon, Sigma, Ricoh, Pentax and others, as well as entry-level full frame offerings from Nikon, Canon, and Sony.</p>

<p>You don't make a "professional" camera which you only intend to sell to non-professional users (which includes existing m4/3 and 4/3 users). What Olympus is hoping for is that anyone willing to spend $2k on a body/lens combo--a demographic which not only consists of well-heeled amateur enthusiasts, but working PJs and videographers-- will take this camera under serious consideration. It's a better body for those who have already bought in to m4/3 and 4/3, but is it compelling enough for those who might otherwise purchase a high-end DSLR, or those who already have invested into other camera makers' systems? That's the question. </p>

<p>Just looking at the high-ISO samples, it has better performance than previous m4/3 offerings, but is clearly not at the level of full-frame cameras. so while the PDAF is a plus, for anyone who shoots regularly in dim environments, i.e. club/concert shooters, the E-M1 is a step backwards from FX bodies. In particular, the blacks at high-ISO (above 3200) show a lot of noise. and like i said earlier, its simply not possible to achieve the same level of dynamic range with a smaller sensor. Not trying to throw salt on this particular camera, just trying to put things in realistic perspective. Were the price closer to $1000 than $1500, this camera would be a lot more appealing to a much wider segment of potential buyers. and, to take your comment at face value, the size factor isn't the strongest 'pro', since there are smaller bodies out there at lower price points, including other cameras from Olympus.</p>

<p>basically, you have to be a dedicated m4/3 user (or legacy 4/3rds user) who needs better AF, stabilization, and weather-sealing than other m 4/3 cameras for this body to be a hands-down choice.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>they exist in a market, which is defined by price point and <strong>features</strong><br>

<strong> </strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong><br /></strong>It is those <strong>features</strong> that separate the E-M1 from the rest of the camera world. That's what people on here mean when they say no competition. Yes, there are plenty of cameras in the $1000 - $2000 price bracket but do you know of any with such a rich set of unique features as the E-M1?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>"basically, you have to be a dedicated m4/3 user (or legacy 4/3rds user) who needs better AF, stabilization, and weather-sealing than other m 4/3 cameras for this body to be a hands-down choice."</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

You are absolutely correct.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>as an owner of the EM-5(actually two of them), for me the Em-1 is a logical progression and not competition. My primary purpose is stills and not video so the GH-3 does not compete because it is bigger and will not correct for my Olympus glass - both 4/3rds and m4/3rds. There are additional features in the body which are attractive like the supposed DR increase, that weird colour changing thing, some drive speed and maybe PDAF. So yes, there are no competitors for what it does and as an owner of Nikon FX gear, MFDs and assorted other photo crap, sorry: no competitors because there is nothing else I own that does what the OMDs do at that physical size and that is what is the most important for me. If your only bargaining chip is price point, then most camera sales are out the window.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>there are plenty of cameras in the $1000 - $2000 price bracket but do you know of any with such a rich set of unique features as the E-M1?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>just to be clear, i'm not knocking the camera. what i am doing is thinking, who is this for? as a photojournalist, AF and weather-sealing in a more compact form factor is a plus. But the weak point of m 4/3 hasn't changed since 4/3: less dynamic range and worse hi-ISO performance. The plus of 4/3 is the crop factor works in your favor when using long telephotos. However, that wasn't enough to save 4/3 from early obsolescence. So now we introduce m 4/3 which offers near-DSLR IQ in a more compact body, and introduce a whole slew of lenses for it, some of which are pretty good.</p>

<p>But here's where the problem arises: if m 4/3 is built around the premise of a smaller form factor, that aesthetic goes right out the window when you start using longer lenses. So you've got an issue right there.</p>

<p>With the E-M1, we see the size starting to creep back up into DSLR territory -- yet the sensor remains smaller than APS-C or FX. that's also an issue. Olympus has some great lenses, but a lot of that 4/3 legacy glass isn't moving units because no one's buying 4/3 bodies any more. Their solution is to put out a high-end m 4/3 body, and try to convince folks that it's worth buying over a large field of competitors. In short, they have to offer more 'features' precisely because there IS so much competition.</p>

<p>Which brings us back to square 1: who's going to buy this camera? besides people already invested in m4/3? am i going to dump my FX DSLR for this? probably not, since i do need to shoot at high-ISO frequently and may need to print larger than 11 x 17. am i (or any other advanced shooter or PJ with several thousand invested already into nikon/canon glass) going to consider using it as a back-up system? maybe, although now we get back to the price point issue: for $1800-$2000 with a pro-spec 2.8 lens, am i going to dive in, or will i say, hey, i dont need that level of spec for a backup, i'm getting an E-P5, a Coolpix A, a Fuji x100, or a sub-$1000 camera with a more compact form factor? if i'm spending more than $1000, but less than $2000, why would i choose this over a Fuji X-E1 or Xpro, which also has some really good glass and demonstrably-better dynamic range and ISO performance?</p>

<p>It almost comes down to, how often will i be shooting in a monsoon? (keep in mind that none of those really nice m 4/3 primes are weather-sealed.)</p>

<p>The more i think about it, the more it seems that the one type of shooter, besides m4/3 folks looking to upgrade, who is going to choose this over any of the other market options out there is the dedicated videophile (which is a growing segment). Reason being, the stabilization might be prioritized over pure image quality. So in that respect, Olympus is smart. But i think it's still going to be a tough sell overall, in this market, at that price point.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>that's a ridiculous statement, and one which cannot be backed up with facts.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It was backed up with an explanation that you did not bother to comment on. My point was simply that this is a camera for people that already picked the MFT system as their main system. Those that want an inexpensive MFT camera can look at other MFT options. Those that want other sensor sizes can look elsewhere too. Those that want all the E-M1 features for a lower price - good luck getting them somewhere else. And those that don't know what they want can suffer the pain of indecision - feel free to call it competition if it helps you deal with it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>as someone invested heavily in nikon, i have to consider the pros and cons of this camera, as well as others in its class i might consider. for that price point, i'm looking at the d600 and the xpro2, whenever it comes out, as well as whatever canon has going.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sounds to me like all these options (Nikon, Fuji, Canon) are competing in your mind simply because you have no idea what you want. The D600 and the XPro2 are very different products. You may want them both and they may thus compete for your budget, but that is not the same thing as them competing with each other. Most people don't want both these cameras, they just want one of them.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the dynamic range is not going to match FF or APS-C due to the smaller sensor</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, the DR of the E-M5 is better than the DR of the Canon 70D. DR is not necessarily proportional to sensor size. Don't know why - this is just what I am seeing - increase of sensor size seems to bring diminishing returns in terms of DR. <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/830%7C0/(brand)/Pentax/(appareil2)/795%7C0/(brand2)/Canon">The Pentax K-5 (APS-C) also has larger DR than the Canon 1DMkIII (FF)</a>. The only aspect that is reliably correlated with sensor size is noise.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As someone invested in both Canon and M4/3 I am weighng up the E-M1 versus a Canon 70D or 6D. If the E-M1 were cheaper that would make my decision easier - not that I don't hink the E-M1 has an impressive feature set, but M4/3 sensors to date don't fully meet all my IQ needs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/895%7C0/(brand)/Canon/(appareil2)/793%7C0/(brand2)/Olympus">the E-M5 has better IQ than the 70D</a> that you are considering and is cheaper than the E-M1 too. I bet it doesn't make your decision easier though. :)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>cameras don't exist in a vacuum. they exist in a market</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There are various levels of competition. If you really want to be wide encompassing, all products exist in a single market and compete with each other for the budgets of consumers. But to me, competition is essentially about multiple companies providing me with the same kind of product. A few examples might help: a motorcycle is not competition for a sedan and neither of them is competition for a pickup truck. Also, camera systems are engineered to minimize competition by tying buyers to the system. As you mentioned, you are a user "invested heavily in Nikon" - the only reason you would abandon Nikon should be if you suddenly find that there is something you want that Nikon does not make - would you then say that such a product competes with the Nikon products? It may be offered by "the competition", but it is not a product that competes with the Nikon products.<br>

<br>

That's why I don't see a D600 or an XPro2 as competing with the E-M1. The GH3 gets closer, but there are still essential differences in features. If you see them as competition, it is only because your feature requirements are vague. <br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Which brings us back to square 1: who's going to buy this camera?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Two kinds of people:</p>

<ol>

<li>Those that already use MFT/FT and want the extra features of this camera</li>

<li>Those that like what the MFT system has to offer and decide to get into the system by picking this high end model</li>

</ol>

<p>Sounds like you're neither of them and are surprised that such people even exist. Well, they do.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>as an owner of the EM-5(actually two of them), for me the Em-1 is a logical progression and not competition.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>ok, so you're in the primary market since you have presumably already invested in m4/3 glass. but to say there is no competition is absolute bollocks. there's other competition within m4/3, not to mention other camera systems. For instance, I have a friend who bought the GH3 and 12-35/2.8 for video last year. it's pretty unlikely he's going to dump that body for the E-M1. OTOH, a journalism student who needs to do a lot of video work, and hasnt yet invested into any system might want the E-M1, although $1800 for the body/lens combo might be difficult on a student budget.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>you have no idea what you want</p>

</blockquote>

<p>just to clarify, my primary camera is a Nikon D3s, which i use professionally. so not only do i have a pretty good idea of what i want, i.e. a camera with a comparable level of performance in a smaller, lighter form factor. but there would be a noticeable step-down in dynamic range and high-ISO performance, which would defeat much of the purpose of the E-M1 for me. also the camera isn't that much smaller than the backup DSLRs i already have. so while i'm a bit intrigued by the E-M1, i'm leaning much more toward the Fujis, particularly the x100s. i thought about the E-M5 when it came out, but the m4/3 sensor was and continues to be the deal-breaker. APS-C really is the gold standard for IQ, and i'm hesitant to sacrifice that, even with the E-M1's many nice features. (what i REALLY want is a compact with a full frame sensor and professional controls, but the Sony RX1 is too close to a really expensive point and shoot, rather than a full-on pro-spec compact, for my taste.)</p>

<p>So, the problem here is that i am exactly the person within the intended market for this camera--a working PJ--and i'm not completely swayed by the E-M1 for all the reasons i already noted. I am surely not the only person in this position. As i previously noted, the E-M1 is an easier sell for someone already invested in m4/3. If someone wants to give me an E-M1 and a bag full of pro-spec lenses, i wouldn't turn it down. But my $1800 will probably be going elsewhere.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Eric the body is $1400, not $1800 and I am pretty sure you are not in the target market of this camera.</p>

<p>As far as IQ goes, you are mistaken as there really are no major sacrifices with Olympus cameras except perhaps at very high ISOs. And even then, IMHO, the majority of what you gain in IQ with many of the full frame bodies is due more do downsampling rather than a true sensor advantage. (with the D3S and D4 perhaps being the exception). While I have not directly compared my D800 to my OMD-EM5, I believe that pixel for pixel there is very little difference between the two.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Intended market for the EM1. A large slice of the serious photographers, working and avocational. As a professional quality (sturdy build) camera, more or less affordable to many who like owning the latest technology, in a small package which can produce very good images. How <em>good</em> is and will be a relative thing and always will be in the real world. If one shoots in really dark conditions, needs very high ISO way over 800, then I expect it will be outperformed by FX hands down. For more moderate conditions, I am judging( results are just appearing) it will be a good seller. Pre orders suggest this..... Can it do as a wedding camera? No doubt. For photojournalists, we will have to see....maybe at some point it will be a safari favorite,who knows.<br /> For now, It should appeal to both micro four thirds users who are selecting and investing in the latest upscale micro lenses that are being issued. The f 2.8 zooms for instance and the nice primes.<br>

And,-not a piddling thing,- gives a nod (long doubted btw) to those who bought into 4/3 glass with expectation that those lenses will always continue to have an updated body. There is a following to the HG and SHG lenses which are in regular use all the time...<br /> But this discussion, gents and ladies, is odd. What are we disagreeing about...and why the umbrage taken. We seem to agree on what we got in this model, so I read a lot of heavy breathing about piddling stuff, frankly. EM1 not the "cameramessiah?" Not the professional's wet dream? Nope, It is a step forward in the development of the mirrorless technology that many have snuggled up to and find comfy and useful.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Got no stock in Amazon (rats!); Jeff Bezos and his gang publish a list of 'best sellers' in the camera category of the EM-1 ) i.e. mirrorless. NOT a bad omen for sales ahead. This was a company heading south in big doo doo a year and a half ago. A phoenix arises again....<br>

Though impressed by the product, I am going to sit it out for a while even as I have the budget to buy. Got my GH2 . my E-1 and E-3 which cover a lot of turf, plus not so budget 4/3 lenses and one really great micro zoom. The Pana GX1, out soon, has some charm as well, like focus peaking and Wi FI. But I can live without all the fun stuff. Newspaper shooters doubtless prize such a feature. Me. I like a video capable unit. Lot of fun if one learns it.<br>

FYI, anyone cares about sales ratings as predictors: <br>

http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/electronics/3109924011/ref=sr_bs_1</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>look, olympus took a really good camera and morphed it into a nex-gen digicam. some people will buy this camera, and many of them will love it. but let's be realistic here about what we're looking at.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If one shoots in really dark conditions, needs very high ISO way over 800, then I expect it will be outperformed by FX hands down.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>um, APS-C can outperform m4/3 at moderately high ISOs. for extreme low-light you need full frame.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Can it do as a wedding camera? No doubt.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>people used to shoot weddings with d200s and S5s. the problem now is that most pro wedding shooters are using FF. i dont see the e-m1 denting this market much.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For photojournalists, we will have to see....maybe at some point it will be a safari favorite,who knows.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>exactly what thom hogan was thinking, likely. i could see this reviving some 4/3 long glass for long lens shooters. but that's long cash, which is what olympus ultimately wants, to steal sales from hi-end nikon/canon lens buyers. they failed the first time out.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But this discussion, gents and ladies, is odd. What are we disagreeing about...and why the umbrage taken.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>there's a certain amount of fanboyism from m4/3 users. maybe because it's been an enthusiast line, up to now. if some pros will use e-m1, i'd like to hear why. need more professional opinions here.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I found this interesting review about the new body. It answered a lot of my questions about AF, especially during video.<br /> <em>"The EM1 may now have phase-detect AF points on the sensor, but sadly does not use them for video, so it relies on the same contrast-based technologies as previous models" </em>(I was quite disappointed to find this out and I am considering cancelling my order over this.)<br>

<br /> In any case, the review is interesting in addition to the previous ones linked above.<br>

<br /> <a href="http://cameralabs.com/reviews/Olympus_OMD_EM1/">http://cameralabs.com/reviews/Olympus_OMD_EM1/</a></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Fanboys (cult followers? ) of a company name need to keep an open mind, granted. Nonetheless, there is a growing acceptance by those who earn their livelihood with mirrorless models and even small sensored micro 4/3 vis a vis APS-C and larger. (Who claim they have set aside a Canon or a Nikon and taken a financial hit I expect in doing so in process, overhead and all, and still produce stuff that sells.) Canon and Nikon have both entered this mirrorless field as well. Fuji, of note, nice models, and, who else, oh Sony- No- Baloney. All deliver good results and hybrid video- a new area of sales, from what I read. <br /> Here is link to one fan pro shooter who has some words of experience with the latest batch. A shill of sorts, retained by Lumix, but interesting nonetheless. Anyone have other pro level opinions on line to share, add as you find them:<br /> http://www.smallcamerabigpicture.com/lumix-g-35-100-f2-8-is-it-a-dslr-killer/</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...