E-M1 review with high ISO samples

[Robin Smith]

<p>From my perspective, the new Olympus is awfully expensive for a camera with a small sensor, particularly as mirrorless cameras seem to have production periods of only about 6 months. I am inclined to agree with Eric - you would need to be a real m4/3 enthusiast to pick up this rather than an APS-C Canonikon, or even pay a little more and get the Canon 6D or Nikon D600. If you are paying this kind of money I think you are a pretty keen photographer so would be aware of the differences between sensor sizes. The Olympus price might well come down to be more reasonable, but that can hardly be good for their bottom line. Olympus have so far not captured the professional market as far as I can see in any real sense (as Eric says) and I doubt this will do it either. It looks a great camera though.</p>

[harveysteeves]

I am on my way to Iceland and because the EM-1 is delayed, I am taking my Nikon FX gear. I looked at those lenses as I

packed them and got to wondering how much the Sherpa was going to cost me. Unfortunately, since one of my outlooks

was for large prints, Something big had to come along. However, next overseas trip, those Nikon monstrosities will not

be coming. I will be forking out for the EM-1, it's not just the body, it's the size of the whole package.

[elliot1]

<p><em>"Olympus have so far not captured the professional market"</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

I believe to get any part of that market, they will need to have dual memory card slots. Otherwise, I find these cameras to be as good as good and in some ways better than the 'big' guys. </p>

[rossb]

<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>

[harveysteeves]

By the time I've figured out my cell phone, I'll be dead.

[rossb]

<p>I am still using my LG flip phone with an antenna. The old clunker is tough as nails. </p>

[elliot1]

<p>For anyone interested, DPReview has comparison images available, including RAW files, at all ISOs. I spent some time downloading and comparing higher ISO images between the E-M1 and E-M5 and frankly don't see any noticeable differences in IQ over the OMD E-M5.<br>

Here is a link:<br>

<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/previews/olympus-om-d-e-m1/9" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.dpreview.com/previews/olympus-om-d-e-m1/9</a><br>

It seems that the improvements are really all in ergonomics and features.</p>

[rossb]

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

[eric_arnold]

<p>@Elliot, it might be hard to tell, but i believe that's an f/2 shot at ISO 5000. i chose it not because it shows off the DoF, but because there's a lot of black areas which are practically noise-free, which makes it suitable for printing and publication. Nightclub shooting in available light is probably the single most challenging photographic application i can think of, and requires not only professional ergonomics, but extreme hi-ISO performance. Most people who dont shoot in these environments regularly dont need ISO 5000 and f/2, so that's not to say that the e-m5 or e-m1 wouldn't be sufficient for the average amateur enthusiast. You're welcome to do as i did and post a shot at ISO 5000 with a lot of black areas -- which will expose the camera's performance under these conditions. My gut feeling is that the latest batch of m4/3 bodies are good up until 3200 or so, which is still better than the d300s and d7000, but not good enough for a lot of the shooting i do. if i just needed a body that could do clean 3200, i'd probably get a d7100, since i already have all the lenses for it. For someone like me to jump on the e-m1, i'd need at least three fast primes as well as a 2.8 zoom. that would cover some of my PJ and street work and some percentage of concert shooting, but i'd still be ass-out when it came to super-dim club environments, like the New Parish, where the shot i posted was taken, which is a place i shoot a lot. Knowing the specific locations you are going to be shooting in goes a long way toward determining what gear one might need. Again, most shooters out there aren't in this boat, but for those of us who do shoot events, clubs, and concerts in available light, there's no alternative to FF. i've gotten a lot of shots with my D3s i wouldnt have otherwise gotten, just because of the high-ISO capabilities. No offense, but that's not possible--yet--with "any MFT body" as was earlier suggested.</p>

<p>That said, I would definitely consider an E-M1 as an adventure travel camera, or any other application where the compact size and heavy-duty weather sealing would actually come into play.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>frankly don't see any noticeable differences in IQ over the OMD E-M5.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>they have the same sensor.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It seems that the improvements are really all in ergonomics and features.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>and this gets into the core of the discussion, because while the E-M1 is a newer, more expensive body, for 90-95% of users, it's just as good as the E-M5, <strong>at a 400% price increase</strong>. marketing hype aside, i see the E-M1 primarily as a device to help Oly move all those really good Zuiko digital pro-grade lenses they made, which other m 4/3 bodies weren't doing. But if you are primarily a video shooter, the GH3 is better, while the GX7 also has in-body stabilization and PDAF at a much lower price point. And even for someone who's thoroughly invested in m4/3--let's say a Pen upgrader--the GX7 or E-M5 are probably more practical options--not just because they cost less, but also because they are more compact and can do most of what an E-M1 does. it's a tough sell to try to upsell your consumer on a more expensive, smaller-sensor camera in what has become a crowded field where there are many options, from hi-end mirrorless, to low-end full-frame, to prosumer DSLR.</p>

[laur1]

<blockquote>

<p>here you go. it was on ming's page: <a href="http://blog.mingthein.com/2013/08/24/the-demise-of-the-dslr/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://blog.mingthein.com/2013/08/24/the-demise-of-the-dslr/</a>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks. I see - it was linked from the review article. I don't see much evidence here though - there are some good arguments, but I would like to see some details from a camera manufacturer showing where exactly they saved most cost - assembly, repairs, parts cost?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>since i took your challenge, Laurentiu, now it's your turn: show me a clean MFT ISO 5000 and up shot with a lot of black areas -- not the colored backgrounds robin wong shot at the aquarium and post-processed very carefully, i'm sure--but a dim club with a lot of black shadow areas. you know, actual real-life crappy shooting conditions. it must be possible, since you said it was, right? btw, to achieve that same shot i posted, you'd need the voigtlander f/0.95 on MFT to match the DoF at f/2 on FF. but that's a manual focus lens, so good luck doing that with a moving subject wide open.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you used f/2, the ISO I would need on MFT would be around 1000-1250 with an f/0.95 lens. Manual focusing is not tricky - it's not like your guy was running around - he seems to be sitting quite still. I have a night scene shot at ISO 3200 and f/0.95 - I'll do a B&W conversion so it shows even better and post it later today, just for kicks.</p>

<p>In the meantime, here's a proof of concept with an inferior sensor (Pentax K-7), in better light, an using an f/1.2 lens manually focused wide open:<br>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/6293936512"><img src="http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6051/6293936512_c5e028e44c_z.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="426" /></a></p>

[laur1]

<p>Here's the low light exposure I mentioned. Looking at my notes, the aperture was either f/2 or faster, ISO is 3200, exposure time was 0.62 seconds, and this was taken handheld with the Olympus E-M5 and the Voigtlander 17.5/0.95. The actual light was dimmer than recorded, but correcting the exposure to make it look like what I was seeing would not be very interesting. I did no special processing. You can click through for a slightly larger image and more info:<br>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/9828757663/"><img src="http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5536/9828757663_36bb362f46_z.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="480" /></a><br>

I shot this image as an experiment - I was just curious what the camera could produce at ISO 3200. The only thing I could clearly see was the light on the building, the lights further down the shore, and some of the reflections in the water. Half of the details I can see now, I did not notice then. I guess sometimes there are opportunities to shoot in pitch black and be happy that something came out, but this just isn't a requirement for what I photograph, so I don't have many such examples. This is probably the only ISO 3200 image in my flickr stream. I take many images in what is considered low light, but I find ISO 800 to be sufficient most of the time. The fact is that today's cameras offer performance that wasn't available a decade ago. I no longer feel the need to upgrade for a sensor performance boost - I just do it for features - I want the builtin grip of the E-M1, the ISO 100 and 1/8000 shutter speed, the improved EVF - I don't even expect the sensor to be as improved as early reviews claim it to be, but as long as the performance is equal to that of the E-M5, I'll be happy.</p>

<p>Here's a night scene that is more typical of what I tend to shoot. This was taken at ISO 200 and f/2. The previous shore scene was shot from the left side of this street and this image gives a better idea of the light available in that area. <br>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/8231763292"><img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8477/8231763292_0420294d11_z.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="476" /></a></p>

<p>And here is an example where I had to push the ISO to 800 (still f/2):<br>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/8114646863/"><img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8331/8114646863_0d7c6c82ea_z.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="480" /></a><br>

I got more shots like this in my stream - just use the <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/tags/night/">night tag</a> to browse them.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Basically both low and high ISO performance characteristics of the OMD cameras is about the same as Nikon's current DSLR bodies with the exception of the D3S and D4 (as previously mentioned, pixel for pixel. Pixel for pixel, even the D800 is really no better than the OMDs, but for the advantage the large sensor gives - most if not all of the IQ advantage is gained through downsampling. </p>

<p>So is a full frame sensor preferred for low light shooting such as the sample you posted? Absolutely. But I don't think a skilled photographer (skilled with the camera and with post processing) would have trouble producing decent shot under similar shooting circumstances. Would it have the same level of detail as the D3S/D4? No. But without pixel peeping or viewing poster size prints from a few inched away, I doubt it would really matter. By the way, Olympus bodies have no issues producing good quality solid blacks even at high ISO.</p>

[eric_arnold]

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

<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. 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. 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. 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><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>and, a color shot from that same show...</p><div></div>

[elliot1]

<p>" E-M1 is a newer, more expensive body, for 90-95% of users, it's just as good as the E-M5, <strong>at a 400% price increase"</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

Eric, the MSRP of the E-M5 is $999 while the E-M1 is $1399 - not quite a 400% increase! But the question really is does the photographer get $400 worth of value with the new body over the old body. I think there are enough enhancements to answer 'yes', especially for someone who is enthusiastic about photography.</p>

[rossb]

<p>Well all the pictures are pretty nice. As far as stage pictures I never had any problem taking them at ISO 800 and 1/30th of a second at f1.8 when my kids were in High School Plays. I just used a 35mm for a long time (blue filter) and then when the Nikon D200 came out I used that. The WB helped out a lot. Both camera's are very noisy and not really very polite to take photos with loud camera's during a performance. So I used to wait until everyone was laughing or clapping before I would fire off the camera. Now I have the Olympus and you can shoot it anywhere and nobody takes notice. I do wish I would have just bought a Leica back in the day. It would have been smart to go mirrorless decades ago. I could have taken so many more pictures without waking the dead. </p>

<p>One thing the Olympus has made me realize is how antiquated the 3:2 aspect ratio is. You know 16:9 is great for the monitor. 4:3 is also real nice as it crops so nicely for 4x6 prints for the family album and 8x10 for framing. I always found cropping the 3:2 for an 8x10 left some hard choices and you had to whack off 2 inches somewhere. The crop was just to severe. The 3:2 aspect ratio made since when everyone used to go to the drug store and get prints but time has moved on. The 3:2 needs the "boot". <br>

Anyway the photos are very nice. I did not see grain in any of them. My favorite of the bunch is the skyline picture with the lights. I always liked shots like that. One of these days when I am rich I will go to Vegas and take pictures of the lights. </p>

 

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p><br /> Eric, the MSRP of the E-M5 is $999 while the E-M1 is $1399 - not quite a 400% increase!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>sorry, should have said 40%. still significant, though.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As far as stage pictures I never had any problem taking them at ISO 800 and 1/30th of a second at f1.8 when my kids were in High School Plays.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>umm, huge difference between a high school auditorium and a nightclub environment. no way i could get away with ISO 800 and 1/30 for moving subjects in dim light.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Now I have the Olympus and you can shoot it anywhere and nobody takes notice.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>this is a big plus for candids and street.</p>

[rossb]

<p>The school plays were in a theater and the lighting varied according to the show and scene. Pitch black to fairly bright with stage lighting. However ISO/ASA 800 is what it is and all I had to work with. I always got some great shots however. The camera noise was always the main problem however. </p>

<p>It sounds like your a professional and of course you have to use equipment that will handle the job you are working on. </p>

[rossb]

<blockquote>

<p>his is a big plus for candids and street.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The OMD should make a fine street rig. The touch screen thing is pretty cool. Just touch the screen and the camera will focus and fire instantly. Faster focus then anything I have experienced. The bad news is I have no interest in street photos. But when in the city I take street photos as practice, evaluation and then deletion. It helps keep you sharp in case your Grand daughter has one of those special mements that you would like to snag. </p>

[elliot1]

<p>duplicate post deleted...</p>

[elliot1]

<p>duplicate post deleted...</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Eric, just for you...</p>

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

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

<p>While I will not shoot a paid event without a body that has dual memory card slots, the OMD EM5 can do pretty anything the big guys can when it comes to IQ. Obviously a low res jpg does not show the detail (or lack of detail) but, as I have mentioned previously, as the pixel level, the OMD EM5 offers pretty much the same level of IQ as even the D800. And for most applications, the amount of detail the camera renders is more than sufficient. And with good software and post processing skills, the OMD EM5 delivers excellent quality high ISO images.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>attachment here</p><div></div>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>Elliot, a question please. You say you require two memory slots because you ( I will try guessing) -a., want the extra capacity if one is filled, or as I am still guessing -b. you want redundancy of storage, two cards filled with same image. Or-? I just wonder, because I have personally never lost personally lost a once in a blue moon shot for lack of redundancy, although I have often carried<em> two cameras indeed</em> to get two different lens perspectives and that kind of redundancy.<br>

My E-3 has two slots but I leave one empty( silly xD) because it gets kind of confusing to have two working media slots to load down and sort. Not sure how E-5 works, but I understand it has CF and SD for purchase variety. Have had great luck with Sandisk cards, btw... Can you amplify your comment for the record? Thanks a bunch. gs</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Gerry, IMO, anyone shooting for pay needs a backup just in case a card fails. While it is rare, it does happen. IMO, Olympus dropped the ball on this one feature - a 'pro' camera should have dual memory card slots. Both Nikon and Canon offer pro/semi pro cameras with dual slots. If I was looking for a new pro camera to use for paid events, I would not buy one without this feature. I am thrilled with my OMD EM5 and am considering the new EM1, but when shooting a paid event, I would have to use one of my bodies that has dual slots. 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>