roypanos

<p>Well, this probably isn't what you want to hear but... <br>

I've had an EM5 since they were first released. I have no interest in using still cameras for video, having, in a previous existence, shot video professionally using dedicated broadcast standard cameras. So that aspect's a mystery to me.<br>

However I will say that the EM5 makes for a small system, which I like, and the files it produces are remarkably good for a sensor this size. The ergonomics of the camera however are simply abominable. Just about everything is poor. Firstly the firmware which is an exercise in bad design to a degree that one would have thought nearly impossible. Then there are the buttons. I have small hands but they are too small, and too numb - particularly the "joystick set". Just moving the focus box around the VF is an exercise in frustration. I've never encountered any similar consumer device that's in an unwanted mode almost every time I pick it up - it's just too easy to accidentally disturb a control.<br>

The af is pretty terrible too, at least for anyone who has experience mostly with DSLRs. Not surprising really but when using (in my case) the Panasonic 100-300 lens you're likely to miss far more shots than you get. A wiildlife system it isn't.<br>

I'm stuck with it as I have jumped off the continual "upgrade" merry-go-round a couple of years ago. I won't be getting back on any time soon as I no longer earn a living with any kind of camera. The delusion that new equipment will turn our efforts into works of art is a delusion assiduously cultivated by the industry. I tend to find that what I point the camera at is the prime determinant of the result.</p>

<p>I bought a cheapo adaptor when I first got the EM5. Supposedly it was one of those which enables aperture adjustment of G lenses. Crude doesn't even begin to describe it. A great way to damage expensive gear does.<br>

In any case after b*ggering about with AIS lenses for a while I bought a few native primes. The Oly 45, Panasonic 20 and even the Panasonic 14 just defeat any sense in using non-native lenses with an adaptor, no matter how well built. There are so many good MFT lenses available of ll kinds I just don't understand why anyone would hamper themselves with anything else (and believe me I have lots of non-native lenses of all kinds.)</p>

<p>I bought a friend a Canon Pixma (A4 - forget model) about 18 months ago. She's a relatively light user - in fact I'd say a VERY light user. This message just appeared which astonished me as my own Epson 2400 is at least 5 years old and relatively well-used yet has never complained.</p>

<p>Is this reservoir/pad a return to base job or user serviceable? If the former I would expect it to be utterly uneconomic - in fact an outrageously premature failure. It would certainly stop me ever buying anyone a Canon printer again.<br>

Suggestions appreciated.<br>

Roy</p>

<p>The lens/body distortion mapping that DxO features is a fundamentally sound idea. It amazes me that Nikon, for example, don't incorporate it in CNX2 - at least for their own hardware. However if ca is a concern (and I've observed it to be a far far worse problem with my M4/3 gear than Dx or FX DSLRs) then shooting RAW - why wouldn't you? - and processing in LR4 is an unbeatable solution. One click eliminates most ca and there's also a configurable fringing tool. </p>

<p>DxO still has the unique capability to correct volume anamorphosis distortion (peripheral stretching) with extreme WA lenses however but unless that's a key requirement, at the current price LR4 has to be a better deal in every respect, IMO.<br>

Roy</p>

<p>I'm surprised that I didn't notice any mention of the "anti-shock" settings available on the OMD. I shoot quite a lot with the Panasonic 100-300 (birds) and was beginning to despair of ever getting anything sharp at the long end, hand-held. Yes, I know, 600mm efov, but even at > 2xEFL nothing was ever what you'd call sharp. Now I don't use this FL for anything much other than a record of birds sighted, so that's not a major issue but even so the results were awful - far worse than my old Sigma 150-500 on a Nikon FX body. But with the anti-shock - currently set at 1/8th - I am getting far more decent results. I haven't really had time to do any half-systematic tests but subjectively the results are clearly much improved.</p>

<p>The other day I also accidentally shot some stuff with the lens stabilisation switched on AND the IBIS in mode 1. This thread is the first place I've seen the suggestion that the lens' stabilisation is disabled when mounted on the Olympus body however the number of sharpish shots acheived was just about a record, albeit that I was quite well braced when shooting and at fairly high speeds (1000 ish).</p>

<p>For anyone who has yet to try the anti-shock settings on long lenses I'd suggest giving it a try.<br>

Roy</p>

<p>After a long time using (and carrying) Nikon DX and FX systems I was looking at the same set of options. Short of buying, using and reselling them all the decision had to be made after reading user reports, professional reviews and handling them briefly. I bought an OMD and don't regret it at all. The comment above about cropping is relevant but if you do the sums most people will conclude that at the size they're likely to print, or view on screen, 16mp affords plenty of pixels to crop from.<br>

The range of M4/3 lenses and even more so their relatively small sizes was a huge factor in my own decision. Even when NEX's lens selection catches up with them they're still going to be substantially bigger and heavier.<br>

Over recent years I've come to the conclusion that portability is a substantially more important factor than minor differences in "IQ" unless you're looking for camera that fits in a small pocket. </p>

<p><em>"So, are we pretty much saying that the IQ of the OMD is about the same as the D200? If it is, then as the IQ of the D200 is quite far from the D700, logic states that the IQ of the OMD is also quite far from the D700 !"</em><br>

In short the OMD is far superior to the D200 on all counts. To the limited extent that it falls short of the D700 its other benefits more than compensate: particularly if you also have a D700 for the times it's better suited!<br>

I have PMd you.<br>

Roy</p>

<p>John<br>

Whilst the D200 (which I also have) can still produce decent pictures in good light I would rate the OMD as vastly better on all counts. You can certainly use an OMD up to - and some would say beyond - iso 3200 with a bit of nr in pp. <br>

For me the live histogram is one of the most useful developments, even if the implementation is a bit odd on the OMD.<br>

Roy</p>

<p>I have both, having owned the D700 from just after it was released along with some decent lenses, like the Big Three 2.8 zooms. I've owned the OMD for a few months now. I have the 12-50 kit lens, the 14/2.8, 20/1.7, 45/1.7, Samyang 7.5FE and the 100-300.</p>

<p>The D700 kit is like handling a bunch of stage weights after using the OMD for a while. Obviously the D700's sensor and AF performance is superior, resolution aside. But it's a huge, heavy lump and for non-commercial use where there's walking involved (ie recreational hiking, which is the majority of my photography) it's a no-brainer to use the OMD. I've hardly picked up the D700 since buying it.</p>

<p>If it weren't for the absurd depreciation and the periodic need for extremely low light use - where it's marginally superior - I'd dump the Nikon gear and buy some of the higher end m43 lenses. With a bit of pp shooting RAW even the low light performance is pretty acceptable. From the lenses I've used you need to shoot RAW as the CA is fairly heavy. LR4 takes care of it effortlessly.</p>

<p>The OMD is a brilliant little camera, not without its faults, but the sheer compactness of the system is a joy.<br>

Roy</p>

<p>"For the best raw quality I would go to EOS-5D Mark2"<br>

Hell, don't stop there, go for medium format: that's even more off-topic.<br>

Roy</p>

<p>I gave up trying to use Olympus software, although it's OK up to a point. First I tried RawTherapee but it has too many variables which, to me, are unnecessary. I bought LR4 which, after the recent price reduction is impossible to refuse. It works just fine, including automatic CA removal which, with mFT gear, is highly desirable.<br>

Roy</p>

<p><em>"Please don't post the same question to multiple forums."</em><br>

Maybe he didn't get much response on the others? Which wouldn't surprise me if this forum is any indicator: it's spectacularly under-populated in relation to the extremely positive reactions to the release of the OMD (I bought one). As for the Pentax forum, I haven't looked.<br>

I'd suggest that the original poster ask the question on one of the sites (DP Review, Fred Miranda, even Luminous Landscape) where there is lively discussion - too lively sometimes - on both of these products.<br>

I'm very happy with the OMD having previously used Nikon DX and FX bodies. Small, light, very decent IQ performance, particularly if you shoot RAW and process in LR4. Nice range of compact lenses including excellent primes at reasonable prices.<br>

I've heard the Pentax is a brilliant camera too but for a given equivalent system there would be a weight and size premium.<br>

Roy</p>

<p>As someone who reluctantly declined the v1 (I bought an OM-D eventually) I must say that these excellent shots demonstrate that its limitations are less of an issue than the use it's put to and the person who is using it. Of course light and clear air like this are to be envied by those of us who spend our time in damp and frequently gloomy climes.<br>

Roy</p>

<p>3rd party batteries (Nikons in my case) have proved to be bargains. Manufacturers profiteer on relatively simple accessories like this.<br>

Roy</p>

<p>In view of the shortage of OM-D manufacturer supplied batteries -not to mention their insane price - many people are sourcing alternatives. Most of these 3rd party batteries come with their own chargers which is obviously inconvenient.<br /><br />I recently ordered a pair of OM-D batteries from this supplier: sevenprincess_genuinestore (Item number: 300718450985) on fleabay.uk. Before ordering I enquired if these would charge on the original Olympus charger. They replied, unambiguously, that they would. But they don't.<br /><br />The battery condition indicator on the camera doesn't report the condition until the battery is flat, but I can live with this. The charging light on the Olympus charger doesn't illuminate at all when these batteries are inserted, which wouldn't be a huge problem - if the damned things charged. They don't.<br /><br />The company supplied a "free" car battery charger with these batteries. Maybe I need to spend more time in the car.<br /><br />I offer this information only to prevent anyone else being similarly misled. Before we get into a philosophical discussion about the ethics of 3rd party accessories, I'd point out that I have had no problems at all in the past with a variety of third party Nikon batteries.<br>

<br>

Roy</p>

<p>I normally shoot a D700. "Street" is not my thing however I can see why you are considering these cameras. I did too, plus the Nex7 and the Nikon V1. They're all quite different of course but I could probably have adapted to the limitations each camera exhibits. Crudely summarised. Nex 7; lenses too big and it's Sony. V1; sensor too small and lacking external controls (the next version will be very good I suspect). X-Pro 1; the evf / ovf option, its USP - I couldn't get both in focus whilst wearing glasses. And it's too expensive for what it is.</p>

<p>It took me about ten minutes of handling the OM-D (which I'd previously discounted as over-hyped) before I pulled the card out of my pocket. Small, a large selection of small lenses (many both inexpensive and very good), and an excellent EVF. £1150 with the very serviceable 12-50 (24-100 equivalent) weather sealed macro kit zoom. I added a couple of Panasonic primes immediately. The 14mm 2.5 - broken out of a Panasonic kit - costs about £115 and it's really quite decent, even very sharp in the middle. The 20/1.7 is just plain excellent although F2 is more usable than 1.7 if you want sharp all round.</p>

<p>I imagine for a street photographer the tiltable touch screen would be a big plus. You can even fire the shutter from it. Overall the controls, whilst small, are highly configurable even though the menu system is initially quite labrynthine. You can find innumerable examples of the IQ on the web. Michael Reichmann on Luminous Landscape has a good user review as do several other noted photographers.</p>

<p>The camera handles beautifully. Recommended by me, FWIW.<br>

Roy</p>

<p>Confession. I haven't read the entire thread.<br>

I own and use, both professionally and for recreation a couple of Nikon DSLRs (mostly the D700) and a wide range of Nikon lenses including the Big Three 2.8 zooms. I'm tired of lugging this stuff around - unless someone's paying me - it's just too bl00dy heavy.</p>

<p>I recently bought an Olympus OMD after first considering the Nikon V1, The NEX 7 and the Fuji X-Pro 1 system. It's a brilliant little camera by any standard. Complex menu system allowing almost excessive customise-ability, but on balance it meets every requirement I have. Came equipped with the 12-50 (24-100 eq.) kit lens. I've subsequently bought the Panasonic 14mm 2.5 and 20mm 1.7 lenses for a minimum size system. There's an amazing range of excellent MFT lenses now available too - if not exactly cheap.</p>

<p>Highly recommended - read some of the numerous reviews and user reports out there.</p>

<p>Roy</p>

<p>One man's lightweight is another man's heavyweight... well, medium weight anyway.</p>

<p>I have done hundreds of spherical panoramas (fully patched 180x360's) off a manfrotto 190 aluminium tripod, which, I guess, is a medium weight example. I still use an under-engineered NN3 pano head even with my D700/16mm AIS. The biggest problem regarding stability is if you are doing HDR bracketed shots. In that case maximum stability is required or you will be effectively reducing resolution (inconsistently at that). I always use MUP and a remote shutter release plus I stabilise my tripod by hanging a bag off it making sure the bag touches the ground sufficiently so that it can't move.</p>

<p>In general, assuming you're only doing one shot per position the precision of each shot's offset from it's companion's isn't that important. The stitching software - I would suggest PTGUI or Autopano are preferred - takes care of the calculation and a degree or so is irrelevant. Far more important, no, VITAL, for VR panos is accurate setup of the no-parallax point. This cannot be over-emphasised.</p>

<p>Roy</p>

<p>When I bought my D700 (in the UK) CNX2 was offered "free". Unlike what a previous poster has suggested it wasn't just a case of registering and entering an authorisation code - they actually had to send me a complete boxed package of the application. Which I thought was pretty dumb, commercially. The code is actually on the CD case.</p>

<p>CNX2 has an eccentric interface and even at this fairly late stage (I'm running a current release on a fast box with Win 7/64 and 8Gb RAM) isn't 100% stable. That said it's not nearly as buggy* or awkward to use as I've seen claimed quite frequently. With D700 files I still find it's quite amazing how much shadow and highlight recovery NX2 can accomplish.<br>

Roy</p>

<p>* Unlike the "message" fields of this site right now, which is extremely unstable under Chrome.</p>

<p>Wow man, I'm having a flashback...<br>

Whenever you tell a programmer that there's a bug the first reaction, invariably, is to deny, deny, deny. Then, when they see it, there's a sort of sullen acceptance - as if the user has been responsible for creating it.<br>

I'm using Chrome. I wouldn't have thought this was browser related but I'm a print man meself...<br>

Roy</p>

<p>Whenever the thread turns the page, Ie when the last post has been made after which subsequent posts appear on the next page, the thread "announces" the page to follow - even though it is not yet populated. So, Clicking on, say, page link 3, produces the warning "problem with your input..."</p>

<p>Well, no, it isn't! It's a problem with Photo.net's code.</p>

<p>And this has been the case as long as I can recall. As someone who used to test custom software for a living this bugs me inordinately. Don't you guys <em>notice</em> this stuff?</p>

<p>Roy</p>

<p>Contrary to every other opinion posted here I find these grips make the huge lumps even more unpleasant to use than they already are. I have a D200 and D700. The former has a third party grip and the latter the MB D10. In the case of the D700 - I seldom use the D200 - I find the camera very top-heavy in portrait mode with the grip attached. The joystick is relatively tiny which makes it worse.</p>

<p>Given the astonishing battery life of the D700 with the standard batteries, even when using large VR lenses, the additional weight of the grip plus batteries is very unwelcome although in landscape orientation it can, for a while at least, balance the camera. I suppose I might just want to use it more if for some unknown reason I was shooting almost exclusively in portrait mode, in some very intensive environment.</p>

<p>Personally I can't wait for the day when these huge cumbersome bricks of DSLRs have been completely made redundant (optical limitations acknowledged) by smaller mirrorless cameras with equivalent, or more likely even better performance. We're almost there already. I am sick of hauling these stage-weights around.</p>

<p>Roy</p>

<p>I have noticed consistent underexposure when using some manual lenses on my D700 for a couple of years at least - irrespective of metering mode but contingent, of course, on the subject metered. I notice this particularly on a 200 mm F4 converted to AI and a 20mm F3.5. My 16mm 2.8 FE doesn't seem to be as susceptible. I adopt similar compensation values to that suggested by the OP.</p>

<p>I posted a question about this in a couple of places but no one came up with any suggestions that I hadn't already tried so I just live with it. For reference the camera gives consistent and expected exposures using my AF S and D lenses. It does however underexpose to the same degree when using my Sigma 150-500, which might be a clue, if I was inclined to investigate further.</p>

<p>Shooting RAW with the D700 gives a surprising amount of latitude for overexposure (> 1 stop) so I tend to err on the + side anyway, unlike in the good old days of slide film.<br>

Roy</p>

<p>Wow Dave (may I call you Dave?) you're a real he-man. I'm in <em>todal awe</em> of your <em>awesomeness</em>. Next time I'm staggering up a mountain track with a backpack containing my D700 and a few 2.8 zooms, puffing and blowing (I'm only 64 years old), I'll try to remember that <em>I'm nothing but a</em> <em>panty-waist</em>.</p>

<p>Maybe - and I ask this ever so humbly - you could perhaps post a snap of one of these teeny weeny DSLRs in your enormous paws. I think we'd all be thrilled to bits.<br>

Thanks!<br>

Roy</p>

<p>Hi Sem<br /> Well, yes, the geometric distortion option certainly does <em>something</em>. Do you think it applies a correction value incorporating lens, body and subject distance parameters? I somehow doubt it. Of course it could be investigated in comparison with DxO if someone was interested enough. But you'd think that Nikon would exploit the opportunity, at least for its own lenses. There is endless discussion of small variations of geometric distortion between lenses and yet the obvious solution is only fully exploited by one software manufacturer.</p>

<p>I'm still puzzled why the volume anamorphosis issue never seems to raise any responses. This thread explicitly addresses the issue and I've pointed out - for the nth time - that DxO offers a solution (and I neither work for or habitually use DxO's software). Personally I really hate this effect. I use the 14-24 quite a lot and at 14mm the effect jumps out at me even in landscape shots. Capture NX2 certainly doesn't address it.</p>

<p>Roy</p>