Street/candid photogs: On the fence about the OM-D EM-5?

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Maybe <a href="http://zunlee.com/">Zun Lee</a>'s photos will help you decide.<br /> http://www.flickr.com/photos/rogueinterventionist/7452273738/in/photostream<br /> http://www.flickr.com/photos/rogueinterventionist/7451394346/sizes/h/in/photostream/<br /> <em>(Since it's Flickr, you gearheads can check the EXIF data.)</em></p>

<p>Zun is doing some of the best documentary photography I've seen anywhere. If anyone has a knack for wringing out the best a camera with quick AF and quick reflexes can offer, it's him. Many of his candids have been done with a Ricoh GRD, and he also uses a Nikon D700. But <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/rogueinterventionist/7451394346/in/photostream">he recently said</a> the <a href="../equipment/olympus/om-d/e-m5/announcement-and-preview/">Olympus OM-D EM-5</a> might very well replace his D700.</p>

<p>BTW, one of his documentary projects was recently featured on the <a href="http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/15/exploring-african-american-fatherhood/">NY Times Lens blog</a>: <a href="http://zunlee.com/blog/post/father-figure-project-choices">"Father Figure"</a></p>

[leslie_cheung]

IMO this post would do better in another forum (mirrorless and s/d?). Oly shooters know how good the OMD is. The

ep3/epl3/epm1 AF is very fast already even tho the sensor is bit old...

[starvy]

<p>Lex, I think there are some lovely shots in the link you provided but I actually wonder how much of this is due to the wonders of the equipment, which is no doubt fantastic. I actually feel that here is a photographer who has mastered the equipment he is using in a short time to get fantastic results. I realise that is a different debate though!</p>

[luis_g]

<p>What I see here is not "wonders of the equipment", but someone who is very good at human engineering. Most of what he does could be done with a film camera and zone-focused 28mm.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Let's come to a compromise, shall we? The good work is that of the photographer, but the camera he is contemplating is a promising tool for that kind of work.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Who said it is the camera only? Lex only said the cameras are very good for what the shooter does (street/candid). I happens to agree...That doesn't mean it is about the camera only. The photographer matters, of course. That shouldn't need to be said... </p>

[jcuknz]

<p>There are quite a few newbie visitors to these forums who think a high priced camera is all they need ... so it does need to be mentioned on a regular basis.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<blockquote>

<p>There are quite a few newbie visitors to these forums who think a high priced camera is all they need</p>

</blockquote>

<p>JC, the same newbies looking at Olympus forum, as opposed to Nikon/Canon/Leica? Doubt it... </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I probably gave Zun's opinions more credibility than techie reviewers because I like his photography and I know the challenges of getting quick, accurate AF with closeup photos of fast moving kidlettes, and candid, unposed closeups of people.</p>

<p>For the past few years I've been considering switching back to Olympus from Nikon, mostly because I prefer smaller, lighter cameras. But I want AF performance equal to my Nikon D2H - I just want it without the bulk, weight and slappy-mirror noise. Even the D90 and D7000 don't interest me now - while reasonably small and capable, I just don't want another slappy mirror dSLR of any kind.</p>

<p>Reports of Olympus AF performance concerned me and I hadn't seen enough photos of the type I can relate to - closeup candid snapshots of active people - from other Oly 4:3 dSLRs and Micro 4:3 models to get an impression of how well they'd perform for my type of shooting. So, sure, I'm persuaded by hearing reports of satisfaction with AF performance from a photographer who's experienced in the type of photography that appeals to me.</p>

<p>I also considered the fact that most of the photos in Zun's portfolio were taken with two very different cameras: a Nikon D700; and a Ricoh GRD III and IV.</p>

<p>The GRD IV is a terrific little digicam. But it's not hard to get sharp in-focus unposed candid closeups. The small sensor and wide angle lens makes that fairly easy, even wide open, even without fast AF - and the GRD IV AF is very quick and responsive, even in dim lighting. Ricoh's "snap" mode and hyperfocal setting help a lot too.</p>

<p>You can spot Zun's D700 photos pretty easily - most of those show much shallower DOF, due to using fast lenses wide open on the FX sensor. And the D700 AF performance is equal to my D2H.</p>

<p>That's why I give a lot of credence to his opinion about the OM-D EM-5. We have similar interests in candid people pix, similar experiences with dSLRs and compact digicams, so his impressions of the EM-5 would interest me more than those of someone who uses it mostly for landscapes or studio portraits.</p>

[Member69643]

<p>Does it really matter? That much? I mean, yes the AF on the OM-D is fast, so is the AF on a Nikon D7000 or a Canon 7D or a Sony a65...</p>

<p>And you can actually BUY the three latter cameras... :)</p>

[bruce_rubenstein]

<p>Define:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>closeup candid snapshots of active people</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Never mind... If the D2H would get it with AF-S then the OM-D will nail it. If the subject needs AF-C, then the OM-D may have some trouble.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Yep, Bruce, I mostly use AF-S, switching between shutter release activated AF and the dedicated AF-ON thumb button as needed. I tend to literally snap shoot, very quickly, one shot at a time. Even with the D2H I usually carry the camera in one hand at my side and lift it to snap a single pic very quickly. So AF-C isn't essential for most of what I do.</p>

<p>I've tried to get accustomed to rear LCD only for snapshot compact digicams but just can't adapt. I end up just peering over the top of the camera rather than bothering with the LCD. Buying an accessory shoe optical/EVF takes the price of most mirrorless cameras up nearly to the price of the OM-D. Even though I'm not crazy about the faux-SLR prism styling, if the OM-D EM-5 finder works it'd suit me better. And the in-camera stabilization appeals to me since my hands are a little shaky some days.</p>

[joshroot]

<p>The OM-D E-M5 is my favorite camera in a long time. I would have no problems recommending it to just about anyone.</p>

<p>Sure, there is a case to be made for the size of full frame sensors. And yeah, I guess there are probably a few people out there for whom the performance difference, slight though it is in my opinion, between m4/3 and APC-C is a big deal. But for a huge percentage of the "enthusiast photographer" market, the OM-5 meets or exceeds virtually all needs. </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i'm a little bummed i couldnt get an OM-D E-5 for my trip to southeast asia/the phillippines (would have had to order it two-three months ago). but it looks like a winner for candid/street shooting especially in many different categories: IQ, AF, hi-ISO, available fast primes, stabilization, compact. my problem is i'm heavily invested in nikon. but i cant help thinking an OM-D with the 12/20/45 primes would be <em>s-weet</em>. i also like the OM-D over the Xpro1 which has better IQ but worse ergonomics and seems to suffer from beta test syndrome.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>ps thanks for that link lex. i have a feeling eudaemon would be awesome with any camera. he certainly nails the GRDIV, and his work with the E-5 also looks hott. curiously, the d700 pics pale in comparison.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Yeah, he makes great use of a busy milieu and has a knack for capturing interesting background activity. Increased DOF from using the GRD's tiny sensor and OM-D's 4:3 sensor seems to work better for his style.</p>

<p>His documentary project has inspired me to review and reconsider my own project from a few years ago, which I never really developed into any sort of coherent theme after taking thousands of photos.</p>

<p>Zun says he doesn't really like to talk about gear. Ironically, I might not have found his work if I hadn't been following a bread crumb trail related more to the GRD and OM-D than to documentary photography. So gear sorta does matter, at least indirectly.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Zun <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/rogueinterventionist/7533392970/in/photostream">updated his Flickr site and added some likes and dislikes about the OM-D EM-5</a>. He says more of value in fewer words than most techie oriented review sites. Should be helpful to folks who consider themselves photographers more than gear-accumulators and test chart shooters.</p>

[kbg32]

<p>I've been using the OMD for a few weeks, and all I can say is that it is awesome. The IQ, the AF, its compactness. It might replace my Leica M9! I was having an issue with the AF after a few weeks. It seemed to struggle and lag. I use the Panasonic 14/2.5 Aspherical mostly. I contacted Olympus and a tech rep suggested I do a reset, it is in the menu, with the lens attached. It cured all ills. I still don't know if I have to do this periodically. Maybe Olympus is working on a firmware upgrade for Panasonic lenses.<br /> Anyway, a great camera!<br /> Some imagery here - http://keithgoldstein.me/</p>

[ken_max__parks]

<p>OMD at $1,000 sounds tempting... but a used Canon 60D would do the same for less cost. Albeit a bit heavier and slightly larger, but all OM legacy lenses and the Canon lenses would do the same. And. I've never had to reset a Canon DSLR.</p>

<p>Keith... very good images!</p>

<p> </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Terrific photos, Keith. Interesting quirk you found in the OM-D. Olympus has a pretty good reputation for glitch-free cameras so hopefully they'll get that resolved.</p>

<p>From my perspective the "Why not get a more cost effective dSLR?" suggestion falls into same basket as "Why do you need an optical viewfinder? Just use the LCD" suggestions. Perfectly sensible advice for *some* folks, but not for all.</p>

<p>These really are very different types of equipment and can't really be substituted for others. I've used SLRs for decades and even the quietest dSLR still produces too much slappy mirror noise to use in situations where discretion is essential, such as at live theater, opera or ballet. (I used to build homemade blimp boxes to muffle the sound of my 35mm film SLRs for live theater photography.)</p>

<p>Same reason why glowwinky rear LCDs aren't suitable for all situations. At a recent opera performance I disabled the rear LCD on the camera - which had no optical finder - and used well practiced guesstimate composing to photograph my companions (I try to respect theater policy about not photographing the actual performances - mostly I'm interested in candids of my companions and audiences). Nobody even noticed me. To be safe, with my older Olympus C-3040Z I tape over the flash and rear LCD so there is no possibility of unintended distractions. And since that older digicam has an optical finder I don't need to guesstimate compositions.</p>

<p>Meanwhile, another audience member a couple of rows down was trying to use her cell phone cam to take photos. The bright blue glowwinky screen was painfully obvious in the darkened theater and drew an irate tap on the shoulder from an audience member sitting behind her.</p>

<p>In darkened theaters, cell phones and LCD cameras are not at all discrete. Even if the screen itself isn't directly visible, I can see the telltale glow reflected off the faces of the users as they try to text or record snaps or video of the performances. That's understandably annoying to folks who've paid anywhere from $25 to $300 for a seat to enjoy performances that rely on subtleties and nuances in volume and movement. (For rock music or burlesque, meh, I doubt anyone would notice or care.)</p>

<p>Anyway, I can understand why for some photographers an affordable dSLR or LCD-only compact or mirrorless camera would be perfectly good for their needs. But for my purposes, compact digicams and mirrorless system cameras with viewfinders *other than* glowwinky LCD screens are the holy grail of candid cameras. But I'd still prefer a good optical finder over an EVF in most situations - although the ability of EVFs/LCDs to adapt relative brightness to dark rooms is appealing for some situations.</p>

<p> </p>

[kbg32]

<p>Thank you Ken and Lex. I never even think of the differences in optical versus EVFs. I can understand those that might be bothered by EVFs, but I use the tool that is available and I find the EVF of the OMD to be extremely excellent. One feature I enjoy, as well as to save battery power, is the ability to turn off the EVF, even though the OMD has an eye sensor. The OMD is also one of the quietest cameras I can recall. As quiet as my M7. </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Good to know it's quiet in operation. The OM-D is among the very few digital cameras that's interested me in years. The Nikon 1 Series seems interesting, mostly for the reportedly speedy overall operation and AF, although the in-camera JPEGs seem pretty blah. I like what I see online from Olympus JPEGs.</p>

[shutterbud]

<p>The absence of an evf or moving lcd is a positive plus for me in the panny gx1. I find it frees me up and lets me be far more spontaneuous and less precious. With my DSLR I found I was trying to perfectly frame with an OVF, making tiny tiny movements to get it all just right. It's not much of an exageration for me to say that it's made a significant change to the way I shoot and feel about photography. The shots which instigated this thread are undoubetldy very very good- 'real' street shots, but I do wonder how much success a blonde Norwegian or Japanese person with exactly the same skill-level would have in these environments (just musing, not trying to make any broader socio-political point). Often now, when I look at a perfectly-framed street shot I wonder how much trimming has been done, how much the image has been manipulated- I'm really beginning to like the idea of allowing those who view my pictures to se what actually happened. Such as in this shot.</p>

<div></div>