EM5 Features

<p>Reviews of this camera seems to quote each other or press releases. As a user of the E-P2 I hope the EM5 would overcome its shortcomings but the reviews don't tell me or are not clear enough.<br>

Firstly, when I want to use flash (mainly for macro, I cannot use the VF-2, leaving me with the near-useless rear screen. As I work a lot at, or close to, ground level, a right-angle viewer is essential. How does this work with the EM5, with an additional accessory, if necessary?</p>

 

<p>The E-M5 has a tilt screen - I use that when I want to take a low shot. I only use the EVF when I need to stabilize the camera by holding it against my face, otherwise I use the LCD.</p>

<p>The E-P2 was basically just an E-P1 with additional software art filters, plus the accessory port for a viewfinder. The E-P1 was obsolete when new, much less the E-P2. Where are you finding generic reviews? I've found quite a few that are fairly independent.<br>

http://robinwong.blogspot.com/2012/03/olympus-om-d-e-m5-review-batu-caves-kl.html<br>

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/tag/e-m5/<br>

http://soundimageplus.blogspot.com/search/label/Olympus%20OM-D%20EM-5%20Review%20and%20user%20experience<br>

If you want a right angle view<strong>finder</strong> for the camera, then you have to use the VF-2 on the hotshoe and tilt it up, which again, leaves you without a flash. However, as Laurentiu mentions, you can tilt the OLED screen, which is not near-useless like it is on the E-P2 (again, such stupidity on their part to make the E-PL2 from scratch, and to 90% reuse the E-P1 for the E-P2). So, you should go to a store and play with one, to see if the screen is good enough for you. I am guessing that it will be. You can guess by looking at minute 9 of the Adorama review:<br>

<p>Sorry about the delay in replying. Some problem denied me access to all string content on the website. Obviously, this is now sorted.<br>

Thanks for the comments<br>

The problem is that I use the flash mostly for high magnification. This is with manual focus lenses in stop-down mode. Using f8-f16 on about 100mm extension (effective aperture much smaller) makes it quite dim in any viewfinder. This can be overcome by use of a tripod but not for my subjects:<br>

This is typical of my main interest, many shots being rejected due to focus problems:<br>

<a href="http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=117023#117023">http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=117023#117023</a><br>

It is possible to move backwards and forwards 'through' the subject and use the best focus position. Unfortunately, air movement causes the leaves on which the subjects are sitting to move so that tactic generally fails.<br>

I can't believe the stupidity of the designers in placing the hotshoe centrally, as if to maximise redeye, when it could be sited to one side (as on my X-Pan). A false hotshoe could be centrally placed to take the V-F2.<br>

There seems to be some hope of the EM5 being an improvement but I am not prepared to pay the retail price for something which might be obsolete next year.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>This is with manual focus lenses in stop-down mode. Using f8-f16 on about 100mm extension (effective aperture much smaller) makes it quite dim in any viewfinder.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>On your E-P2, the LCD screen should show the properly exposed image, not a dark one. Maybe I am missing a shortcoming of the E-P2 model, but on the MFT cameras I used with manual lenses, the LCD/EVF is always displaying the scene correctly exposed so it is much easier to use such lenses stopped down than it was on a DSLR.</p>

<p>You can use a simple electric cord to put the flash where you please in relation to the camera.</p>

<p>There is a limit to how much boost Live View Boost can give. Remember, this is high magnification macro. The 1/160 shutter speed at ISO 100 and 110mm of extension, captures no visible ambient light image.<br>

I could use a PC cord but there is no provison on the camera. I happen to have comprehensive TTL cords which, in this case, do the same job. Where the flash units go is not the issue, apart from the camra hotshoe. Any device to fire them off-camera would eqaully occupy the hotshoe. This is the only case where I would like to have a pop-up flash, to trigger slave triggers, leaving the hotshoe free for the VF-2.<br>

The main point here is lack of clear thinking by the designers. They are designing camera layouts based on SLR requirements. There is absolutely no functional reason for the VF-2 to be central.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There is a limit to how much boost Live View Boost can give. Remember, this is high magnification macro. The 1/160 shutter speed at ISO 100 and 110mm of extension, captures no visible ambient light image.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If the situation is so bad, I don't see how an EVF can change it. But since you seem to say that you are capable of using an EVF, then the LCD screen should work fine too - even better than an EVF because you won't have to keep your head at ground level. And you're free to use the hotshoe for the flash.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Traditions and conventions tend to stick around. An accessory shoe above the lens is the best place for optical view-finders, so it was put there; and there it has stayed. Few cameras have been made with more than one accessory shoe. The Leica Standard is an example, although at that time there were no electronic view-finders. It seems to me that the Olympus designers will not have -- or cannot have -- anticipated your requirements, which you will perhaps agree are unusual. My own experience of close-up work (a little short of 1:1 cannot of course be called high magnification macro) was that an LCD to focus and compose on would in many circumstances have been better than an optical finder at eye level.</p>

<p>"have been better than an optical finder at eye level". Yes, but I use an angled viewfinder with my OM cameras in such circumstances, so "eye-level" is not the issue there.<br>

"Olympus designers will not have -- or cannot have -- anticipated your requirements, which you will perhaps agree are unusual" I suggest you take a look at the OM macro system. Based on their knowledge of that they not only could, but should, have known. They are too interested in face recognition and effects filter nonsense and competing with cellphone cameras.</p>

<p>The OM system (as a whole, not just the macro tools) was<em> a system</em> and was meant to match similar systems from other makers. I do not think the OM-D E-M5 is intended to have anything like that range of accessories. Perhaps you should rail at the Olympus management instead of describing the designers as stupid.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"have been better than an optical finder at eye level". Yes, but I use an angled viewfinder with my OM cameras in such circumstances, so "eye-level" is not the issue there.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So what is the issue then?</p>

<p>The essential issue is that you can't get your head in position to view an non-tilting screen at ground level.</p>

<p>I am lost. http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/01/olympus-om-d-em-5-micro-four-thirds-camera-review/ speaks of "the main 3-inch 610,000-dot OLED tilting display".</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The essential issue is that you can't get your head in position to view an non-tilting screen at ground level.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You started a thread to ask about the E-M5 and the E-M5 has a tilting screen. So what are you talking about now?</p>

<p>Let's start again and clarify the issues:<br>

1) Any screen on the back off a camera has limited usefulness irrespective of its resolution. (Forget indoor use).<br>

a) You get reflections in it, obscuring the display<br>

b) Even without reflections, you are straining to see because of the conflict of contrast betwen the screen and your surroundings. (like watching a TV in your garden on a sunny day).<br>

c) By definition, you have to push it away from your face to able to view it. This makes accurate framing and focus more difficult. For intense sessions, shooting many images, it is very tiring on the arms, leading to unsteadines<br>

a) to c) are far more of a problem as magnification in macro shots increases and the screen cannot compensate for the light loss.<br>

2) The VF-2 (my experience is limited to this model) overcomes the problems in 1)<br>

However, as the illumination (for framing and focus of the subject) at increasing magnification falls off, you cannot use the slow shutter speeds required and have to revert to flash, you have to remove the VF-2 and put up with the problems in 1). Whether there is a tilting screen is only a minor factor (an unviewabnle screen at a jaunty angle!).<br>

Yes, it is true that, at a certain level of magnification, you can get a brighter viewfinder image in a digital display than through an optical viewfinder but that can be more usefiul thnt a display which lighting conditions at the back of the digital camera do not let you see. That said, I can view through the same setup, but with a film camera, and have a brighter image because I can use full aperture framing (say f2.8 rather than f11) and focus with my legacy lenses which I have to stop down for digital use. That is academic here but I also use film, where that applies.<br>

To sum up, the VF-type function, with the larger eyecup to exclude the last of unwanted external light gives a good, but not excellent set-up for macro. External screens make macro difficult to impossible with stopped-down lenses, such as when flash is used.<br>

Why do I use stopped-down legacy lenses? Many hours of study of specialist website might give you a clue. Essentially, you need a wide range of focal lengths and other characteristics, such as working distance. The best of so-called "macro" lenses tend to be optimised for about ten times life size even if rated for 1:1. I am maily interested in about 5:1 , verturing to 10:1.<br>

For indoor work, I can use a tripod and frame focus at full aperture with the VF-2 in place. I can then remove the VF-2, place the flash on the hotshoe and close the lens down. Any one of these can shift the critical focus enough to ruin the shot. That works only for inactive subjects anyway.<br>

Olympus is really missing a trick by not building on the OM system, especially the macro and the wide range of dedicated flash units. That might lose them some sales of their lates models but it could build useful brand loyalty.<br>

In the meantime, an m4/3 model with a VF attachment clear of the hotshoe is very little to ask for. An alterative would be a flash cord socket on the camera body, as for the OM4, thus leaving the hotshoe free when required.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Any screen on the back off a camera has limited usefulness irrespective of its resolution.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am very amused by this pattern I see on forums once in a while. Someone asks for advice in an area they have no experience with (the E-M5 camera here). Then, after advice is given, they start explaining how things really work in that area (in our case, how the E-M5 LCD cannot possibly be useful).</p>

<p>Is the E-M5 LCD sufficiently improved to solve your scenario? Only you can figure it out, but to do that, you'll have to get your hands on an E-M5 and try it out. What I and other users of the E-M5 can tell you is that the LCD is of a higher quality and is more usable than those in previous camera models (less reflections, viewable at an angle if you don't want to make use of its tilt capability, better contrast). Only the E-P3 model used an OLED screen before it. </p>

<p>If you think you can reliably extrapolate the experience of using the E-M5 from specs and your own experience with E-P2, such that you can override the direct experience of people that have use the E-M5, that is great - but then don't ask for advice if you think you know better.</p>

<p>Harold, don't buy the camera.</p>