Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: New Camera from Olympus  (Read 18953 times)
ned
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 79


« Reply #20 on: September 10, 2013, 10:11:08 PM »
ReplyReply

I can't see how the EM-1 image samples would be worse than any other m4/3 camera, there should be raw files available soon so I would hold judgement on image quality. My first impression of the grip was that they carved it out a piece of black styrofoam and shoved in on the side of the existing E-5 with the palm of their hand. Looking at a few more of the images the grip wouldn't hold me back from buying it, which I don't think I will. I have the EM-5 for when film is impracticable  Grin

I'll rent one just to confirm to myself that C-AF can't move the big glass in my super telephoto. The EM-5 rattlesnakes really bad with it.



Another complaint I have heard was the OMD line is too small to use with big lenses. My OM350mmf2.8 worked fine with the OM cameras, and they were small. Don't remember hearing any complaints about that   Undecided  (E-5 Mounted)

Logged

Shutter speed is crucial in photography somehow.
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7962



WWW
« Reply #21 on: September 10, 2013, 11:59:01 PM »
ReplyReply

I disagree.  I think the omd samples look a little overly sharp, though most dslrs like the d7100 and the 5d2 at 400 iso look soft, so we all have a different take.

Looking at these results: http://www.dpreview.com/previews/olympus-om-d-e-m1/9

It depends where in the image you look in fact. I was looking at the lower left corner where the D7100 is IMHO sharper, but the upper right corner shows the OMD as being sharper indeed.

But I still feel that the new Olympus is pretty much soft accross the image. again, it may be a focus accuracy issue.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #22 on: September 11, 2013, 09:32:54 AM »
ReplyReply

What bothers me with the EM-1 integrated grip is not that there is one, but that it looks soooo out of place on the EM-5 body, like a Frankenstein contraption. Take for example, GH3: large grip as well, but fully integrated with the rest of the body in terms of lines and overall feel.

that's true, GH3 has a nicer grip and hump integrations w/ the body... I think some designers in Olympus were too much into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyhedron 's

Logged
Telecaster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 811



« Reply #23 on: September 11, 2013, 12:37:42 PM »
ReplyReply

My favorite 4/3 lens is the 50-200, doing what would need an even longer lens in APS-C or 35mm.

Just for kicks I've included a pic showing, side-by-side, the Oly 50-200 and a 35mm format equivalent, the 1st version of the Nikon 80-400. Bulk-wise there actually isn't much difference between them. The Oly, however, weighs about 1 lb. less than the Nikon...and is, of course, faster.

-Dave-

Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #24 on: September 11, 2013, 03:42:01 PM »
ReplyReply

.and is, of course, faster.
and is of course covering 4 times less sensor area... do you want to pry some 1.x-2.x lens from P&S camera and put it nearby...it will be, of course, faster
Logged
Telecaster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 811



« Reply #25 on: September 11, 2013, 04:46:28 PM »
ReplyReply

and is of course covering 4 times less sensor area...

Sorry, dude, I refuse to take the bait.

-Dave-
Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #26 on: September 11, 2013, 05:47:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Sorry, dude, I refuse to take the bait.

-Dave-

damn !
Logged
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1119


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #27 on: September 12, 2013, 08:10:58 AM »
ReplyReply

I think digital camera development is interesting.

When I bought my first two 1ds Canons, which I think were the first film quality digital cameras made, in the fact that shot quickly, had little if no artifacts and went to around 600 to 800 iso cleanly.  Probably higher today with modern processing.

Anyway, at the time I could see all the companies large and small selling new cameras like those vendors on Canal street selling watches.

I told my studio manager at the time, if I was smart (obviously I'm not), I would buy 2 more 1ds, put them in a safe and only pull them out when I wore out the originals.  I thought at the time I would save a lot of money, concentrate more on photography and business and not be caught up in the mad rush for more pixels, detail, iso, etc. etc. etc.

Well now it's been 10 Canons later, approx. $30,000, A leaf Valeo, Leaf Aptus ($30,000), Two phase one backs ($36,000) A nikon d2x (when the 1ds Canons had issues ), $5,000, Nikon D3, D7000 oh I don't know 7 grand, and now onto video cameras (won't even count the Canons, REDs, etc.), but up to the 43 systems I owned, in still cameras along, there is over $100,000 in camera capture devices alone, not including lenses a trillion upgrades on software and enough apple computers to make me a Apple reseller.

Funny thing is with the 43 cameras I've come kind of full circle.  The OMD and the GH3 for stills shoot about the same quality file as the 1ds2.  In comparing them to my latest Canon 1dx they are about a stop slower in noise, about 15% less detail (if that). so I assume they equal a 1ds1 or 1ds2 and yes they work professionally because I've shot a lot of images with them lately, nobody has said a word, I've been paid, life goes on.

So where are we today, where we weren't 10 years ago?  Well, first thing is these cameras are smaller.  I've never been a fan of small cameras, because we carry over 300 lbs of equipment, even on planes, so what's a bag or two?  (well actually a lot with overage fees, one bag 4 countries can equal 900).   But these cameras really aren't that small, about the size of 35mm film cameras, so it's not iike their tiny, its just professional 35mm cameras are huge.

Next the Canon 1ds didn't shoot professional video.   You have to look long and hard to find any motion camera at any price that does what the gh3 will do and with the black magic 43 camera that's just a plus for this format.

They all have some form of articulating viewfinder which doubles as a waist level finder.  The 43 ratio is perfect for vertical and in the gh3's case you really don't miss an ovf, in fact your hard pressed to know it's not an ovf in most instances.  Maybe the omd1 will do the same.

Then price.  For two canon 1ds new at the time I paid close to $13,000.   The complete 43 kit with three bodies, 7 lenses, sound, chargers, extra batteries, is around 6 grand.

But bottom line in still image quality, (f you call quality pixel size, detail and noise qualitiy  . . . I don't)  I'm pretty close to where I was 10 years ago.

Funny.

Now to put this in perspective to the omd1.  It seems like it will be a good camera and well worth the money.  The only disappointment is the video quality, the slow roll out of lenses and the fact the zooms are 2.8 instead of f2.  They also took away some of the jewel like quality of the grip and battery holder.  The omd 5 really is a pretty camera.

So in reality the omd1 fixes some things the 5 needed like a little better higher iso, some fixed f zoom lenses, better viewfinders and track focusing, (what the omd 5 wouldn't do), but also in reality what olympus made was a Panasonic gh3 without the video.


IMO

BC




« Last Edit: September 12, 2013, 08:22:50 AM by bcooter » Logged

RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #28 on: September 12, 2013, 08:46:56 AM »
ReplyReply


But bottom line in still image quality, (f you call quality pixel size, detail and noise qualitiy  . . . I don't)  I'm pretty close to where I was 10 years ago.



Is that really a positive?  With all the developments in digital imaging technology to say that you're 'pretty close' to where you were 10 years ago?  I'd suggest that's a pretty big condemnation of the digital imaging industry.  I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would agree that the state of play hasn't advanced significantly in the last decade.  Even comparing a 4/3 sensor of today to a full frame or APS-H (I can't tell if you're talking about the 1D or 1Ds).
Logged
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1119


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #29 on: September 12, 2013, 09:03:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Is that really a positive?  With all the developments in digital imaging technology to say that you're 'pretty close' to where you were 10 years ago?  I'd suggest that's a pretty big condemnation of the digital imaging industry.  I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would agree that the state of play hasn't advanced significantly in the last decade.  Even comparing a 4/3 sensor of today to a full frame or APS-H (I can't tell if you're talking about the 1D or 1Ds).

What I'm saying is take a 1ds or 1ds2, take a photo, process it, then do that with the gh3 or omd1 or 5, rinse and repeat and you have essentially the same quality and once again in quality I mean bit depth, detail, noise.

Now if you come from a manufacturer standpoint there have been great leaps, but from the user step back and think about it.

1.  Medium format is still working of legacy cameras that were designed 15 years ago (except the Leica S).  There main selling point is pixel count.

2.  35mm ovf cameras are still the same shape, form factor and lens sets as 10 years ago or in the film era, except film cameras had better ovf that you could manually focus, todays' modern dslrs don't.

The only real difference in 10 or so years and incremental improvements in pixel density, noise levels and higher iso.  Probably higher iso is the biggest leap.

The real point is with digital capture few clients care what camera you put on set, because most are good enough for any use, even aps c and 43.

Honestly (and I've done this) my ancient 1ds (which I rarely use) or my ghetto p21+ and p30+ digital backs are still useable today because processing suites have become so much better.

IMO

BC
Logged

eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4025



« Reply #30 on: September 12, 2013, 09:55:58 AM »
ReplyReply

I agree with James. Part of the problem is that the guys who made the 1Ds were clearly Canon's "A Team" and it was sold at cost, and the next models were made for profit. The other problem is that in the quest for high ISOs the filter CFAs were changed, so that the higher color precision in the electronics is offset by worse filter discrimination. Last not least the current gen cameras have 20MP, the 1Ds had 10. As an upshot, I'd say that we've gained about 1 1/2 stops DR and ISO from my 1Ds to my Nikon D4; frankly I think the 1Ds is quite competitive with todays models, on image quality.

Edmund

What I'm saying is take a 1ds or 1ds2, take a photo, process it, then do that with the gh3 or omd1 or 5, rinse and repeat and you have essentially the same quality and once again in quality I mean bit depth, detail, noise.

Now if you come from a manufacturer standpoint there have been great leaps, but from the user step back and think about it.

1.  Medium format is still working of legacy cameras that were designed 15 years ago (except the Leica S).  There main selling point is pixel count.

2.  35mm ovf cameras are still the same shape, form factor and lens sets as 10 years ago or in the film era, except film cameras had better ovf that you could manually focus, todays' modern dslrs don't.

The only real difference in 10 or so years and incremental improvements in pixel density, noise levels and higher iso.  Probably higher iso is the biggest leap.

The real point is with digital capture few clients care what camera you put on set, because most are good enough for any use, even aps c and 43.

Honestly (and I've done this) my ancient 1ds (which I rarely use) or my ghetto p21+ and p30+ digital backs are still useable today because processing suites have become so much better.

IMO

BC
Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #31 on: September 12, 2013, 10:06:53 AM »
ReplyReply

What I'm saying is take a 1ds or 1ds2, take a photo, process it, then do that with the gh3 or omd1 or 5, rinse and repeat and you have essentially the same quality and once again in quality I mean bit depth, detail, noise.

I know what you were saying.  I'm saying I think that's a very negative view of the state of digital imaging and I'm not at all convinced that it's accurate.

Quote
Now if you come from a manufacturer standpoint there have been great leaps, but from the user step back and think about it.

1.  Medium format is still working of legacy cameras that were designed 15 years ago (except the Leica S).  There main selling point is pixel count.

Pixel size more than pixel count.  And bit depth.  And the 'look' of MF.  Many MF backs can record in full 16 bit.  The Pentax has only a few more pixels than the D800 but has a very different look to the file and, for some, is preferable.  

Quote
2.  35mm ovf cameras are still the same shape, form factor and lens sets as 10 years ago or in the film era, except film cameras had better ovf that you could manually focus, todays' modern dslrs don't.

Huh?  You can't focus today's DSLRs manually?  Because the viewfinder isn't good enough?  I mean, I have difficulty focusing manually but that's because my eyes are shit.  Not because the viewfinder isn't good enough.  I can still focus manually with a split viewfinder.  But split viewfinders have been gone in SLR cameras for far longer than 10 years.  My, long since sold, EOS 620 didn't have a split viewfinder.  Cameras today have other aids for manual focus though.  My Nikons have a built-in rangefinder that tells me when I have focus with manual lenses.  No electronics necessary.

Quote
The only real difference in 10 or so years and incremental improvements in pixel density, noise levels and higher iso.  Probably higher iso is the biggest leap.

But those differences in noise via vastly improved processing chips and the addition, and continued improvement of, microlenses on sensors has resulted in leaps in dynamic range as well.  Significantly less noise.  Far greater dynamic range.  Much better high ISO performance.  Vastly improved resolution through greater pixel density.

Quote
The real point is with digital capture few clients care what camera you put on set, because most are good enough for any use, even aps c and 43.

No argument there.  As long as the job gets done the client is generally happy.

Quote
Honestly (and I've done this) my ancient 1ds (which I rarely use) or my ghetto p21+ and p30+ digital backs are still useable today because processing suites have become so much better.

Again, no issue with that.  But just because a 10 year old camera can do the job doesn't mean it produces images as good as a current model.  And processing software can't overcome all of the shortcomings of the older technology.  It's like saying a '57 Impala is as good as a '13 Impala.  Both will get you from A to B.  But the '13 Impala is a much, much better car.  The '57 might be considered to be a better looking car, but by all other measures it's vastly inferior.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2013, 10:08:37 AM by BobFisher » Logged
petermfiore
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 520



WWW
« Reply #32 on: September 12, 2013, 10:11:21 AM »
ReplyReply



The new design (grip) makes it the ugliest camera I've seen recently, too similar to many super-zoom p&s and low-level DSLRs.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think so, but I love ugly cameras.

Peter
Logged

bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1119


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #33 on: September 12, 2013, 10:40:49 AM »
ReplyReply

I think most of what I'm saying is positive.

You can take an old camera, or digital back that sells for pennies on the dollar and go shot professionally, if you have the talent and the ability to get the gig and be sure nobody is going to say that file won't work.

Also what cost $24,000 in the first 1ds days with cameras and lenses is now in 43 around $7,000 AND you can shoot tremendous film like motion imagery.

In fact I bought the 1ds2 because it shot a little faster, the 3 because, well I don't know why, the 1dx because I tested them and thought the 1dx and the 1ds3 were identical for stills, but I could shoot 10fps stills for cut frame video.  The color of the 1dx out of camera, it's too weird too orange, though I can fix it.

If you don't believe me on any of this, that's fine, but I have and continue to do the things I've described.

Now in regards to the OMD 1.  I don't get it.  I understand improving the focus, the ability to use the older 43 lenses.  But what don't get is the incremental upgrades from every maker.

There is no technical reason that the omd 1 could not have had two sound imports, a headphone jack, shoot a 72mbs intra file making great use of their amazing image stabilization.

Actually there is probably no reason it couldn't be hacked to shoot a raw video file like the canon 5d2,3 whatever.

In other words they could make a better gh3 and that is the stuff that stumps me.

And if you don't care about shooting motion, then fine, but the commercial and editorial world does.

Terry Richardson just shot a medium production quality video of that strange Milley chick that got something like a million views a day.  In three days it probably will surpass all of the views of his print work in the last three years, so yea video does matter.

The point I'm making is buying the latest and greatest is fine if YOU enjoy it, or YOU need it, but most of the time you don't need it.

What I would love to see is the entrepreneurial guys at black magic and RED have Canon's budget for 6 months.  Then you'd probably see cameras the size of your Iphone that worked like an arriflex.

Now the real question is why 43?  For me because first it was the video of the gh3 which has yet to disappoint, secondly and a pleasant surprise was how good the still quality is for these little cameras.

They kind of look like 35mm film which I like, because they are not glass smooth past 400.

Since I go from city to city, studio to studio, (today I'm in London) I can put one messenger bag on the plane, one tripod in a suitcase and have a camera system I can virtually use on any gig.

For heavy production, yes we bring a lot of stuff, but if I want to shoot an editorial here today, I can.  

But I see this in a very different way.  I'm not a casual photographer or a guy that turns two shots a day.  If that was so I'd never have to buy another camera again.

We push tons of data, right now I'm looking at about 7 terabytes with motion and stills, to be spread out over 16 videos, don't know how many web and print placements.

At that volume, at that post production speed and requirements, they want professional imagery, but nobody is counting a little noise in a shadow or if somebody's eyelash is slightly blurred in a group of 15 subjects.

Others will disagree, others have that right.

IMO

BC

« Last Edit: September 12, 2013, 10:42:56 AM by bcooter » Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5875


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #34 on: September 12, 2013, 10:41:22 AM »
ReplyReply

... Many MF backs can record in full 16 bit...

Oh, no, not again!

Quote
...Huh?  You can't focus today's DSLRs manually?  Because the viewfinder isn't good enough?...

Oh, man, you really do not know what you are talking about. Or, to be precise, you do not know what James was talking about.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3415



WWW
« Reply #35 on: September 12, 2013, 10:53:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Huh?  You can't focus today's DSLRs manually?  Because the viewfinder isn't good enough?  I mean, I have difficulty focusing manually but that's because my eyes are shit.  Not because the viewfinder isn't good enough.  I can still focus manually with a split viewfinder.  But split viewfinders have been gone in SLR cameras for far longer than 10 years.  My, long since sold, EOS 620 didn't have a split viewfinder.  Cameras today have other aids for manual focus though.  My Nikons have a built-in rangefinder that tells me when I have focus with manual lenses.  No electronics necessary.
Trying to do manual focusing with my modern Canons is no way as easy as my old OM cameras, which despite the camera being half the size they have a viewfinder that is cinematic in size compared to my FF Canon's 'TV' viewfinder.
Just tried using both with same lenses and the OM is certainly easier to focus manually despite screen not being as bright and that was with out even using the excellent focusing aids at centre of screen, that are no longer present.

Part of the issue is that the Canon screens give an effective aperture of around f3.6. If I take a pic at f1.4 on my canon, it looks extremely different to the viewfinder image and thus focusing accuracy is going to be way off too. The ground glass view via my OMs is much closer to the final image.
It's a bit sad that a viewfinder in a camera whose design is about 40 years older and half the size be can so much better than a modern FF camera.
The 1Dx does have a larger viewfinder than the 5Ds I like to use, but that camera is even more enormous. Makes my Pentax 6x7 seem dainty!  Shocked
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3415



WWW
« Reply #36 on: September 12, 2013, 11:20:44 AM »
ReplyReply

You can take an old camera, or digital back that sells for pennies on the dollar and go shot professionally, if you have the talent and the ability to get the gig and be sure nobody is going to say that file won't work.
This ⬆


Quote
Now in regards to the OMD 1.  I don't get it.  I understand improving the focus, the ability to use the older 43 lenses.  But what don't get is the incremental upgrades from every maker.

There is no technical reason that the omd 1 could not have had two sound imports, a headphone jack, shoot a 72mbs intra file making great use of their amazing image stabilization.

Actually there is probably no reason it couldn't be hacked to shoot a raw video file like the canon 5d2,3 whatever.

In other words they could make a better gh3 and that is the stuff that stumps me.
Tiny little incremental upgrades and crippling things to price points is what pissed Jim Jannard off so much and why he started RED.

Quote
What I would love to see is the entrepreneurial guys at black magic and RED have Canon's budget for 6 months.  Then you'd probably see cameras the size of your Iphone that worked like an arriflex.
Jannard is not exactly short of cash though....

Quote
And if you don't care about shooting motion, then fine, but the commercial and editorial world does.
Terry Richardson just shot a medium production quality video of that strange Milley chick that got something like a million views a day.  In three days it probably will surpass all of the views of his print work in the last three years, so yea video does matter.
Views are high because she is the current teen idol de jour and she gets naked in it.
She seems to be trying to prove she is an adult, not a little Disney moppet and is trying to be as provocative as possible. Failing miserably to be sexy though, as she simply comes across as desperate and trying too hard. Sticking your tongue out at every possibly opportunity or licking a grubby hammer is more pathetic than sexy.


Quote
Now the real question is why 43?  For me because first it was the video of the gh3 which has yet to disappoint, secondly and a pleasant surprise was how good the still quality is for these little cameras.

They kind of look like 35mm film which I like, because they are not glass smooth past 400.

Since I go from city to city, studio to studio, (today I'm in London) I can put one messenger bag on the plane, one tripod in a suitcase and have a camera system I can virtually use on any gig.
I have to say I'm getting increasingly fed up of carrying MF weight kit and would love to have a system that was as light and as compact as my old OMs. But although I'm happy to use small sensor cameras for doing street photography, I like the look of FF too much for it to replace my Canon kit entirely.
One of the first things I did when I starting shooting digital was to make my images look like film. I hate the plastic/video look too.
Digressing - I recall a thread on here a while back where some folks were saying how much better film was than digital as it had a certain magic something. I posted some B+W images and they were held up as examples demonstrating their point about film being better than digital. Amused me no end to point out they were in fact taken on a pocket digital camera.  Grin
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1119


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #37 on: September 12, 2013, 11:46:44 AM »
ReplyReply

I understand that Milley thing because standard folk just can't get enough of a celebrity and the words nude in the same sentence.

Yes it's pathetic.

But understand I have no agenda.  I'm not trying to convert anyone to anything.

I'm also not getting involved in the 14 or 16 bit thing . . . ok . . . but,

I've used my R1's to block a shot with continuous light and they held more range than a p30+.  Did it a lot of times and same result.  Obviously they don't have the sharpness but they do have more dr or whatver anyone wants to call it.

Anyway, the only point I'm making is things have not changed that much, unless your including instigram and facebook and my second point is I'm sure the OMD1 is a good camera, but why intentionally hobble it?

When RED or BlackMagic have an issue it's not by design and they work feverishly to fix it.  In RED's case they charge you for it but they do fix it.

In the other world of big name cameras they just sell you another 15% for 100% of the costs.

That's the difference.

IMO

BC

Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3415



WWW
« Reply #38 on: September 12, 2013, 01:51:52 PM »
ReplyReply


...... and my second point is I'm sure the OMD1 is a good camera, but why intentionally hobble it?
So they can sell you a less hobbled camera next year and the year after and the year after that......
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #39 on: September 12, 2013, 02:09:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Oh, no, not again!

What?

Quote
Oh, man, you really do not know what you are talking about. Or, to be precise, you do not know what James was talking about.

If I wasn't addressing his point it's because his point wasn't clear.  As I said, it's not even clear whether he's talking about a multiple 1D cameras or a 1Ds or multiple 1Ds cameras.  If he's talking about jjj's point then I still say bullshit.  If James or Cooter or Russell or whomever wants to type in express himself in intelligible English, then maybe his points can be addressed more precisely.  The simple point is, manual focusing is not that difficult with a DSLR.

Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad